The scope of interested parties who can request a trial to confirm the scope of passive rights related to industrial property rights, such as patent and design rights.

An interested party who may request a trial in a trial to confirm the passive scope of industrial property rights such as patent rights or design rights refers to a person who suffers, or is likely to suffer, loss on business by setting up against the obligee, etc., and such interested person includes a person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, or using, objects which may cause a dispute as to whether they fall under the scope of rights, and who, in light of the nature of the business, is presumed to be manufacturing, selling, or using such objects as business in the future.

Article 69 of the Design Act, Article 135 of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Hu51 Decided July 23, 1985 (Gong1985, 1186), Supreme Court Decision 85Hu46 Decided July 7, 1987 (Gong1987, 1325), Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1431 Decided February 9, 1990 (Gong190, 649)

claimant

Appellant (Patent Attorney Shin Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 96 No. 162 dated September 30, 1997

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

An interested party who may request a trial in a trial to confirm the scope of passive rights to so-called industrial property rights, such as patent rights and design rights, refers to a person who suffers or is likely to suffer loss on business by setting up against the obligee, etc., and such interested party includes a person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and using the subject matter that may cause a dispute as to whether it falls under the scope of rights, and a person who, in light of the nature of his/her business, is presumed to be manufacturing, selling, and using such subject matter as a business in the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Hu51, Jul. 23, 1985; 85Hu46, Jul. 7, 1987; 89Hu1431, Feb. 9, 190).

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below rejected the respondent's assertion that (a) if the petitioner manufactures and sells the same product as the registered design of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "registered design") and the petitioner has received a warning from the respondent requesting the prohibition of infringement of the design right, it constitutes an interested party entitled to request the adjudication of this case; (b) if the chairperson of this case (a) is not a product manufactured and sold at the time of the claimant's request for adjudication, and even if the product is not a product manufactured and sold, he would have received a warning from the respondent, he would have a benefit of requesting a trial as to whether the (a) design of this case belongs to the scope of the right to registered design of this case. Therefore, in light of the records and legal principles as seen above, the court below's above determination and measures are just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the interests in the request for adjudication, or interests in confirmation in comparison with the registered design of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "design of this case's registered design).

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)