logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2015.04.03 2014허7370
권리범위확인(디)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) Registration number 1)/ application date/registration date of the registered design of this case: The product that is the object of the design registration: C/D/E 2: A description of the design, the main points and drawings of the design creation, the main points of the design creation, and drawings: The defendant;

(b) Articles subject to confirmation 1) Design: A photograph of water-used bedclothes 2): The plaintiff (attached Form 2):

C. 1) The comparative design 1 (No. 5) is a design related to the "BABY SING SAT" registered as the US Design US D484,941 S. on January 6, 2004. The drawings (attached Form 3-1); 2) the comparative design 2 (Evidence 6) (Evidence 6) published on March 17, 2006, published in the Patent Gazette, published on March 17, 2006. The drawings (attached Form 3-2) are as follows.

3) A design for an infant, published in the Patent Gazette of the U.S. Patent Registration Des. 289,465 (No. 7 Evidence) registered on April 28, 1987, which is a design for the comparison design 3 (No. 7), published in the Patent Gazette of the U.S. Patent Registration No. 289,465 (No. 289,465), and its drawings (attached Form 3-3; 4) the comparative design 4 (Evidence No. 8; 4) the Patent Registration Des. 329,278 of the U.S. Patent Registration No. 4 (Evidence No. 8) registered on September 8, 1992, is a design for an infant bather published in the Patent Gazette of the U.S. Patent Registration No. 329,278 (INFT). The drawings are as shown in [Attachment 3-4].

5) On May 19, 1981, Des. 259,274 of the U.S. Patent Registration No. 5 (No. 9) of the comparable Design 5 (Evidence A), which was registered on May 19, 1981, filed a petition for an affirmative trial to confirm the scope of a patent, asserting that the design is similar to the registered design of this case and falls under the scope of a protection,” and that the drawings (attached Form 3-5) are the same. D. On May 22, 2014, the Defendant filed a petition for an affirmative trial to confirm the scope of a patent, asserting that “the design subject to confirmation falls under the scope of a protection, as similar to the registered design of this case.”

2. The Intellectual Property Tribunal shall file the above appeal.

arrow