logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.01.15 2015가단11277
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion C registered D Design Registration Number E B B B B bridge railing design (hereinafter “instant design”), and the Plaintiff transferred the design from the said company and completed the registration of transfer on February 16, 201.

On October 2010, the Defendant manufactured a bridge rail 3,274m which infringed on the design of this case and supplied it to F Co., Ltd. with the order of F Co., Ltd. without the right to exploit the design of this case.

The Plaintiff is the owner of the design right of the instant design and the owner of the design right may claim damages against the infringer for the prohibition, prevention, and damages. Thus, the Plaintiff may claim damages against the infringement.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 69,968,654 and damages for delay due to the infringement of the design of this case.

2. It is evident that the owner of a design right may claim damages due to the prohibition or prevention of the act of infringement of the design or infringement.

However, in principle, the owner of a design right to whom the design right was transferred may claim damages only for the damages incurred to him/her after the transfer of the design right, and it cannot be deemed that the damage claim already established before the transfer of the design right naturally succeeds to the transferee of the design right.

In this case, the Defendant’s design infringement claimed by the Plaintiff was terminated at the time when the Defendant manufactured a bridge rail and supplied it to F Co., Ltd., and the damages claim of the owner of the design right arising from the infringement was also established at the time (the Plaintiff also sought damages for delay after October 31, 2010 on the premise that the Plaintiff also sought damages). The Plaintiff was prior to the acquisition of the design right to the design of this case, and the Plaintiff was already transferred the right to the design of this case to the Defendant.

arrow