beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) Registration number / Date of application / Date of registration: Name of a product: Category D/ E/F2 for design registration: G3: (Attachment 1) design right-holder: the Defendants
(b) The name of the product subject to verification (1) drawings: G2: as shown in attached Form 2.
C. 1) Registration number / Date of application / Date of registration of prior designs: The name of the product on February 27, 1998 (No. 232081/ February 27, 1998/ Nov. 18, 1998: A drawing of poppy C (attached Form 3):
same as paragraph (1).
2) Registration number 2A) / filing date / registration date of prior designs: The name of the product on May 13, 1998 (No. 234742/ May 13, 1998): Drawings of poppy (attached Form 3) (B).
(d) same as paragraph (1);
Preliminary Design 1) Source: The publication date of the Utility Model Gazette (No. 2000-0002396) of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (No. 2000-00396): February 7, 2000: drawings of poppy valves 4): The attached articles are as shown in attached Form 4.
E. On May 27, 2015, the Defendants filed a petition against the Plaintiff for the trial to confirm the scope of active right by asserting that “the design subject to confirmation and the registered design of this case are identical or similar to each other, so the design subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right of the registered design of this case.” 2) On November 19, 2015, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial decision citing the Defendants’ petition for the trial to confirm the scope of right by asserting that “the registered design subject to confirmation is identical or similar to the registered design of this case, since the registered design of this case and the registered design of this case are identical or similar to each other.”
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 as to the design subject to confirmation and comparative design is the subject of comparison.