Effect of confirmation of the scope of rights to a utility model right

Since confirmation of the scope of a right to a utility model right becomes final and conclusive in relation to a specific fact, as an interested person, who suffers or is likely to suffer damage to his/her business due to an opposition against the right of the owner of the utility model right, the effect of the utility model right shall be determined differently in relation to the specific fact, even if the same fact is identical, unless the utility model right subject to adjudication is different in the same relation, and there may also be different interests. Thus, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be said that a request for confirmation of the scope of a right to a different utility model right is made, or that the interests of the former decision shall be extinguished.

Article 25 (1) 2 of the Utility Model Act

claimant

Appellant 1 et al. and two others

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision (Law No. 239) No. 239 dated April 21, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since confirmation of the scope of the right of a utility model right shall be made in relation to specific facts by interested parties who suffer or are likely to suffer occupational damage due to oppose the right of the owner of the utility model right, it shall be possible to change the result of the utility model right which is the object of adjudication in the same relation, and there may be different interests in the utility model right, even if there are the same facts, so even if the utility model right which is the object of adjudication is different from that of the utility model right, it shall not be deemed that a claim for confirmation of the scope of the right of a utility model right which the same party has against the same party or a judgment has been made, unless there are special circumstances, it shall not be said that the request for confirmation of the scope of the right of a utility model right is made double or that the utility model right has extinguished as a prior decision. In this regard, even if there was a trial decision on the scope of the right between the parties and the other party's (registration number omitted) and the utility model right, it shall be justified in holding that there is no error in the misapprehension of opinion or dissenting opinion.

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.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)