beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendants’ filing date and registration date/registration number 1)/ C/D/E 2 of the registered design of this case (No. 2) of the Defendants: C/D/E 2: F3 of the description and drawings of the design: [Attachment 1]. (b) The description and drawings of the design subject to confirmation (attached Form 2) (attached Form 2) are as shown in attached Form 2. (c) The description and drawings of the design subject to confirmation are as follows: (a) the design pertaining to “F”, the description and drawings are as shown in attached Table 2. (c) On December 17, 2014, the former design (Evidence 3) was published on the homepage of the C&C, C&W, the homepage is as follows; (d) the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s design subject to confirmation belongs to the scope of the right to the registered design of this case against the Plaintiff on July 16, 2016, and claimed that the scope of the registered design of this case is similar to the registered design of this case.
2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered the instant trial ruling citing the Defendants’ request on June 29, 2017, stating that “The design subject to confirmation is similar to the registered design of the instant case, and thus, falls under the scope of the right to the registered design of the instant case,” following the said trial ruling by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Patent Trial and Appeal Board”) in the said case. 【Unfounded-founded grounds for recognition, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 through 3, and evidence Nos. 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as well
2. The summary of the parties' arguments and the organization of issues;
A. Although the design subject to the Plaintiff’s confirmation is similar to the registered design in the instant case, a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design pertains (hereinafter “ordinary designer”) can easily create the design from prior designs. Thus, it does not fall under the scope of the registered design in the instant case.
Therefore, the trial decision of this case is unlawful with the conclusion different from that of this case.
B. A photograph containing a prior design of the Defendants is a photograph.