beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) The name of the product in question (No. 2 No. 1) is registered number / the filing date of the design registration / the filing date of the application / : F3: B) drawings: B). Since the comparative design 2 and 3 are not used as specific comparison data to determine the same or similar design, the description and drawings of the main contents are omitted. (1) The number and drawings of the comparative design 1 (No. 5-4 of evidence No. 5-2 of the comparative design : A) registration number / the filing date of the application / the filing date of the design registration / the filing date of the registration / the publication of the registration : FC: Defendant 2 (No. 5-6 of the evidence No. 5-2 of the design registration / the filing date of the design registration / the registration / the publication of the registration / the name of the product in question / the registration / the publication of the design / the publication of the registration / the registration number No. 3 (No. 5-0)/ registration number of the design / registration 5).
C. On March 2, 2015, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiff on the ground that the registered design in the instant case is similar to the comparative design, and that the registered design can be easily created from the comparative design, and thus, the registration should be invalidated. 2) After examining the registered design in the Intellectual Property Tribunal under 2015No644, Jan. 21, 2016, the registered design in the instant case was easily created from the comparative design, and the registered design in the instant case fell under Article 5(2) of the former Design Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the “former Design Protection Act”) and rendered a trial ruling accepting the said request for a trial on the ground that the registration should be invalidated.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 5-1 to 6, video, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that the registered design of this case is a kicker, etc.