logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2015.09.11 2015허2211
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) / filing date / registration date: name of a product subject to design B/C/D2: Design right-holder 3) for packing agricultural products: description of the design and drawings: Plaintiff 4: As shown in attached Table 1.

B. The design subject to confirmation shall be conducted by the plaintiff, and its drawings are related to the "betting for agricultural products" in the specific "betting for agricultural products," as shown in the attached Table 2.

C. On September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for an adjudication on confirmation of the scope of active rights (No. 2014Da2368) seeking confirmation that a design subject to confirmation is similar to the registered design of the instant case and falls under the scope of the relevant right. 2) On February 26, 2015, the Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for adjudication on the ground that the design subject to confirmation is not similar to the registered design of the instant case and does not fall under the scope of the relevant right.

【Facts 1, 2, and 4, evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s registered design of this case and the design subject to confirmation are similar to the registered design of this case as to the ground for revocation of the Plaintiff’s trial decision, because they are placed at the right bottom of scood scood scood scood in relation to the scood scood scood scood scood scood scood scood scood scood scood

Therefore, similar to the registered design of this case, the design subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right, and the trial decision of this case, which has different conclusions, should be revoked as unlawful.

B. The common point of the Defendant’s assertion of the instant registered design and the design subject to confirmation is widely known prior to the application of the instant registered design, and does not affect the aesthetic sense, but the difference is both in form, pattern, and color.

arrow