logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2016.12.01 2016허1383
권리범위확인(디)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Case summary

A. 1) On August 14, 2015, the Defendant’s design (hereinafter “instant design subject to confirmation”) conducted against the Plaintiff by the Defendant against the Intellectual Property Tribunal.

) The registration number B design (the design right holder: the Plaintiff; hereinafter “instant registered design”).

(2) On January 5, 2016, the Intellectual Property Tribunal accepted the Defendant’s request on January 5, 2016, and rendered a trial decision that the instant design does not fall under the scope of the right because the overall shape and shape of the registered design of this case are not similar (hereinafter “instant trial decision”).

(b) Date of application 1) of the registered design of this case / Date of registration: C/D2: E

1. The material is Hadro Hegel or Hegel: 2. The main design is used for improving the grix of snow and for cosmetic effects, after removing film papers on the part of the design. On March 3, 201, the main design is used after removing film papers on the part of the design that is used for improving the grix of snow and cosmetic effects. The reference to the main design is as follows: 4. The reference to the design is as follows: 1. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d.

C. Articles 1) subject to design of this case: E2) Design drawings / [the drawings] / [the drawings] / [the fact that there is no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The registered design of this case and the design subject to confirmation of this case are similar to the dominant characteristics of the Plaintiff’s registered design of this case as to the grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s trial decision.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1 of the registered design of this case and the design subject to the confirmation of this case are similar to the overall aesthetic sense, since the dominant characteristics are not similar.

arrow