beta
Text
1. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal’s decision on October 29, 2015 (No. 2015Da3512) is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The registration number of the registered design in this case 1) / the filing date of the priority claim / the filing date of the application : The name of the product B/D 2: E3: A description and drawings of the design in the E-3; (b) the description and drawings of the design in the E2; (c) the description and drawings of the design in the instant lawsuit; (i) the Plaintiff first submitted 1,2, and 3 of the comparative design in the instant lawsuit; (ii) the name of the product posted on the Internet (F) on February 1, 2012: (iii) the comparative design in the instant case: the name of the product posted on the Yuuube Internet (F) : 2) the comparative design in the B/D 2 (No. 3-1 through 4 of evidence 3: 2) the name of the product posted on June 23, 2012, and the name of the compared design in the Internet (No. 2500) drawings (No. 3) 200. Da31320.
D. (1) On June 10, 2015, the Defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for the trial to confirm the scope of right by asserting that the design subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the registered design of this case. (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on it as 2015Da3512, and rendered the instant trial ruling citing the Defendant’s petition for trial on October 29, 2015 on the ground that the design subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the registered design of this case and falls under the scope of the right.
[Reasons for Recognition] deemed confession (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the registered design of this case is identical to the comparable design 1, 2, and 3, publicly known prior to the priority date, and thus, cannot be recognized as the scope of right because the registration is obviously null and void.
Therefore, since the challenged design does not fall under the scope of the right to the registered design of this case, the decision of this case, which has different conclusions, should be revoked as unlawful.
3. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful
A. The relevant legal doctrine applied for the registered design.