206.Joint 633 damages

A

Attorney X-hwan et al.

1. B

2. C.

3. D;

4. E.

5. F;

6. G.

Defendant 5 and 6 Attorney Y

Defendant 5 and 6’s attorney-at-law 2

Mar. 27, 2008 (Defendant 1, 5, and 6)

Ad Hoc (Defendant 2, 3, and 4)

April 24, 2008

1. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are dismissed. 3. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 101,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, F, and G, and evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 7 through 11 (including paper numbers), and the Defendants are deemed to have been led to confession pursuant to Article 257(1) of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff, Defendant C, D, and E.

A. The Plaintiff is a person having the design right of a registered design (registration No. I/201, 2001, 2002; hereinafter referred to as “registered design of this case”) whose content is the shape repeated in the upper, lower, left, and letter of the shape of the chromatic pattern, in which the total satis in general service and the satisf of the satus in which all the satisfs in which all the satisfs in general service are surrendered,hhh, is the owner

B. Defendant B, the trade name of “C”, from March 7, 2002 to May 14, 2002, Defendant C, from January 2002 to December 12, 2002, Defendant D, from January 4, 2002 to the trade name of “C”, Defendant E, from January 1, 2002 to December 12, 2002, from January 1, 2002 to the trade name of “E”, Defendant F, from January 1, 2002 to December 2, 2003, with the trade name of “C”, from January 1, 2002 to December 2, 2003 to the trade name of “C”, and from January 2, 2002 to December 2, 2003, production and sale of each of the separate drawings (Omission) (hereinafter “the instant quotation”).

C. Defendant D filed a petition for a trial seeking invalidation of the registration on the ground that the registered design of this case was publicly announced prior to the filing of the petition, and that the registered design of this case was registered in violation of Article 5(1) of the Design Act. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal tried the above case as 2002Dang2112 and rendered a decision accepting the above Defendant’s claim on May 30, 2003, but the Patent Court revoked the above decision as a judgment on December 29, 2003 on the ground that the registered design of this case and the cited design of this case are not similar designs. The above decision became final and conclusive on January 25, 2004.

2. Demand and judgment

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as the Defendants infringed on the Plaintiff’s design right by manufacturing and selling the joint joints as shown in the cited in this case, the Defendants suffered losses of KRW 16,31,520 (5,680,480 x 24 months) in total of KRW 16,31,520 (5,680 x 24 months) and KRW 16,331,520 in total of KRW 10,000 for annual sales losses of the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff infringed on the Plaintiff’s design right, including market research expenses for developing the registered design, etc., the Plaintiff claimed that Defendant C had a duty to pay KRW 13,606,00 in total, KRW 9,00 in total, KRW 9,00 in Defendant E and KRW 133,606,00 in total, KRW 10,637,00 in total, KRW 100 in total, and KRW 16,315,200.

In light of the above facts, the defendants made or sold a strings such as the instant quotation. However, since both the quotation of this case and the instant registered design are 8-9 (in the case of the instant registered design, it is clear that it is 8 or more in the case of the instant cited design, but 9 in the case of the instant quoted) with the flowers of the 8-9 design as the design, it is similar in the form repeated at such intervals as street length. However, in the case of the instant registered design, the instant quoted design does not seem to be a string pattern, which is obvious in the form of flrings on the basis of the strings, and the registered design of this case is contrary to the strings of the shape of the instant registered design, and it seems to be completely different from the shape of the instant registered design in light of the shape of the instant flrings, and it seems to be inconsistent with the shape of the instant flrings without using the design of this case, and it appears to be completely different from the shape of the instant design.

The Speaker can not be regarded as a similar design because the aesthetic or visual increase that makes the seeable so that it can feel is different from one another.

Therefore, since the Defendants’ act of manufacturing and selling a pressing identical to the instant quotation does not constitute an infringement of the Plaintiff’s design right, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is without merit, without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge, respondent

Judges Kim Jae-young

Judge Senior Superintendent;