Lee Jae-chul (Law Firm U.S. Patent Attorney Lee Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Attorney Kim Young-ok (Attorney Kim Young-ok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

September 8, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on April 30, 2005 on the case No. 2004Da1976 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the instant trial decision

A. On September 10, 2004, the defendant filed a petition against the plaintiff for an adjudication on confirmation of the scope of active rights that the plaintiff's letter of confirmation as to "the site where freight truck is loaded falls under the scope of the defendant's right to the registered design of this case. On April 30, 2005, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on it as 2004Da1976, and decided on April 30, 2005, the registered design of this case is not similar to the comparative design, but is not a design that can be easily created from this, and the plaintiff's letter of confirmation is similar to the registered design of this case.

B. Details of the registered design of this case, the design for confirmation, and the design for comparison

(1) The registered design of this case

(1) Registration number: A person having the design right as prescribed in Article 237866.

(3) Date of application/registration: April 23, 1998/24 February 24, 1999

(4) The main point of the creation of the design: A drawing of the attached Form 1. Combination of the shape and shape of support equipment for truck loading boxes expressed in the attached Form 1.

(5) Explanation of the Speaker: Materials shall be metal materials and shall be used to support a revolving axis that operates a dump truck loaded with a dump truck by opening or closing the dump truck.

(2) The Chairperson of the Confirmation

Attached Form 2. The details shall be as listed in Attached Form 2.

(3) The plaintiff's registered design

Attached Form 3. The classification shall be as listed in the attached Form 3.

(4) Compared design

Attached Form 4. The referenced in Attached Form 4.

[Evidence] Items 1 to 3, 6 to 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the trial decision

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Speaker subject to confirmation was filed by the Plaintiff on July 10, 2003, which was prior to the instant petition for adjudication, and registered on February 3, 2004 as the Design Registration Act No. 344983, Feb. 3, 2004 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s registered design”), and the Defendant’s claim for the confirmation of the scope of right against the Plaintiff’s registered design is unlawful despite its illegality.

(2) The registered design of this case consists solely of a shape that is essential to secure the function of goods to support the revolving of a dump truck with its shape and shape loaded on and at intervals of dump trucks, and thus its scope of rights is not recognized.

(3) The registered design of this case is similar to the comparable design, which is publicly known prior to the filing of the application, and can be easily created therefrom, and thus, is not recognized as new and creative, and its scope of right is not recognized.

(4) The Speaker to be confirmed does not correspond to the registered design of this case and does not belong to the scope of the right of the registered design of this case.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the challenged design is identical to the Plaintiff’s registered design

According to each description of evidence Nos. 1 and 17 as to whether the challenged design is the same as the plaintiff's registered design, the plaintiff's registered design is a combination of the same shape and shape as the plaintiff's registered design, and the Speaker subject to confirmation is a combination of shapes and shapes as the plaintiff's registered design. The plaintiff's registered design is a design composed of a combination between the stable government and the support division. The plaintiff's registered design is a design for the main body combined with the stable government and the support division, and the Speaker subject to confirmation is a design for the completed body combined with a flick and flick line to be used in loading it. Thus, the Speaker subject to confirmation is not the same design as the plaintiff's registered design. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether the scope of rights to the registered design of this case is recognized

㈎ 원고는 이 사건 등록의장이 물품의 기능을 확보하는데 불가결한 형상만으로 이루어진 의장이므로 그 권리범위가 인정되지 않는다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 이 사건 등록의장은 축고정부에 둥근 원기둥의 축을 삽입하여 사용하는 물품이므로 축고정부 내부의 형상이 원형인 것은 물품의 기능을 확보하는데 불가결한 형상이라 할 것이나 그 밖의 부분들은 자유롭게 디자인할 수 있는 부분이라 할 것이고, 이 사건 등록의장 및 비교대상의장에는 뒤에서 보는 바와 같이 축고정부와 지지부의 결합위치 및 크기의 비율, 지지부의 볼트구멍의 개수, 위치 및 전체적인 직사각형 형상의 결합과 배치에 따른 심미감이 달리 느껴지므로 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

㈏ 원고는 다시 이 사건 등록의장은 비교대상의장들에 의하여 신규성 및 창작성이 없으므로 그 권리범위가 인정되지 않는다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 비교대상의장 1, 2는 단순히 구부러진 철판 또는 수직 철판에 축고정부만을 형성하고, 비교대상고안 3은 직육면체의 철판의 한쪽 면에 바로 축고정부를 형성한 단순구조인데 반하여, 이 사건 등록의장은 장방형의 지지부 한쪽 면에 45도 정도로 경사지게 하여 약간의 간격을 두어 축고정부를 형성하고 2개의 볼트를 사용하여 지지부의 저면에 받침판을 1세트로 결합한 구성의 형상 및 모양의 결합이고, 비교대상의장 1, 2는 직사각형 모양의 폭이 좁은 한 쪽 면을 둥글게 말아서 원기둥을 넣을 수 있도록 하고 다른 한쪽은 길게 늘어뜨린 형상과 모양이고, 비교대상의장 3은 직사각형 모양의 폭이 넓은 한 쪽에 축고정부에 해당하는 원통형상을 간격 없이 연결한 형상과 모양인데 반하여, 이 사건 등록의장은 직사각형 모양의 지지부와 받침판을 2겹으로 하여 그 지지부의 넓은 면의 모서리에 원기둥이 들어갈 수 있는 원통모양의 축고정부가 결합되어 있고, 지지부에는 2개의 볼트가 결합되어 있으며 지지부 밑에 붙어있는 받침판 면적이 상단의 지지부 면적보다 좁게 되어 있는 점 및 종래의 공지의장인 비교대상의장 1, 2는 실용신안의 대상으로서 그 권리자가 피고인 점 등을 종합적으로 판단하여 볼 때, 양 의장은 둥그런 원통모양의 축고정부가 있다는 공통점 이외에는 보는 사람으로 하여금 느껴지는 심미감이 상이한 의장이라 할 것이다.

㈐ 이에 대하여 원고는 이 사건 등록의장은 비교대상의장들로부터 용이하게 창작할 수 있는 의장에 해당하여 그 권리범위가 인정되지 않는다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 등록의장은 “트럭용 적재함 지지구”에 관한 물품으로서 덤프트럭의 적재함 커버를 개폐 작동시키는 회전축을 지지하는데 쓰이는 것으로서 기존의 둥그런 원통에 길게 늘어뜨린 형상·모양인 비교대상의장들과는 상이한 심미감을 느끼게 하는바, 객관적 창작성이라는 기준에 비추어 볼 때 이 사건 등록의장은 비교대상의장들로부터 용이하게 창작할 수 있는 의장이라고 할 수 없으므로, 이 사건 등록의장이 의장법 제5조 제2항 에서 규정하고 있는 용이창작에 해당하는 것이라는 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

(3) Whether the challenged design is similar to the registered design of this case

㈎ 이 사건 등록의장과 확인대상의장의 대상이 되는 물품은 모두 덤프트럭의 적재함 커버를 개폐 작동시키는 회전축을 지지하는데 쓰이는 것으로서 그 용도와 기능이 유사하므로, 양 의장의 대상이 되는 물품은 동일한 물품이라 할 것이다.

㈏ 이 사건 등록의장과 확인대상의장의 유사 여부

① In determining the similarity of a design, it shall be determined not by partially separating each element of the design, but by examining whether the impression and impression that are to be ventilated by the person who is to observe and observe the whole part of the design in comparison with the mind of the general public. In such cases, the similarity shall be determined from the perspective of whether the person who is to view the design is aware of the part that is most easily leading as the essential part and observe it, thereby causing a difference in the aesthetic sense of the general public. If there is a commercial transformation that makes it impossible to reduce a big difference in the overall aesthetic sense, the two chairpersons shall be deemed to be similar (see Supreme Court Decision 95Hu135 delivered on January 26, 1996).

② From this perspective, the design of this case and the challenged design of this case are to be seen in comparison with the design of this case. In comparison with both designs centered on private roads and static islands where the dominant features of the instant registered design of this case and the challenged design of this case are well expressed, the private roads and static intensity of the registered design of this case are identical shapes and shapes as “,” and on the other hand, photographs and static intensity photographs of the challenged design of this case are the same shapes and shapes as “,” respectively. While the overall structure of the challenged design of this case is wider than those of the supporting body and two volts are combined on the supporting body, and the overall size of the supporting body is to be compared with each other, the overall size of the supporting body is to be substantially similar in terms of the fact that there is no difference between the supporting body and the outer shape of each supporting body, the overall size of the supporting body is to be compared with the outer shape of the supporting body of this case, and the overall size of the supporting body is to be compared with each other.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the registered design of this case was completed only in a form essential to secure the function of goods, or it cannot be said that the registered design of this case is not new and creative by the comparative design, and it is similar in depth to prepare for the purpose of confirmation and the registered design of this case, so the Speaker subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right to the registered design of this case, and the decision of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)