logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.09 2016가합539576
디자인권 침해금지 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from July 19, 2016 to December 9, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Date of the Plaintiff’s filing of the design right / The registration date / The goods subject to B/ C/D design: A description of the C design for the replacement of car sets;

1. Materials of solid materials, such as metal or plastics;

2. The thickness shall be approximately 0.2m to 2m, and shall be adjusted according to the use environment.

3. The main point of the design creation that is to facilitate the protection and installation of pande pande by a pande system installed in a motor vehicle trial: a drawing that combines the shape and shape of “a pande for a motor vehicle trial system” with the main point of the design creation as the main point of the design creation [a Do] [a Do ] [a Myeon Do Do Do ] / [a Myeon Do Do Gun Do Do Gun Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do ] / [a Do Do Do Do Do Do ] / [ a Do Do Do Do Do Do

B. The Defendant, from July 2015, manufactured and sold Defendant’s products, manufactured and sold an automobile accelerator with the same design as the instant registered design (hereinafter “Defendant’s products”) around April 7, 2016, who was requested by the Plaintiff to suspend the infringement of the design right, and from April 19, 2016, manufactured and sold the automobile accelerators indicated in attached Form 2 (hereinafter “Defendant’s products”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute or no clear dispute, Gap's 1 through 6 evidence, Eul's 2 and 3 evidence (including each number, if any), or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim for prohibition of infringement of design right

A. The Defendant’s act of manufacturing and selling the Defendant’s product to which the design similar to the registered design of this case was applied constitutes an act of infringing the Plaintiff’s design right regarding the registered design of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant the prohibition of infringing the Plaintiff’s human right, such as the claim stated in paragraph (1).

(b) the shape that is well-known below the original form of the determination:

arrow