beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the design right-holder of the registered design as follows (hereinafter “instant design”).
1) Date of application / Date of registration / Number of registrations: Goods subject to design on October 10, 2008 / on March 25, 2010 / Goods subject to design on March 25, 2010 (No. 30-057118) : A description of the design for parking marking 3) is metal materials and plastic materials.
B) The main point of the design creation is to determine whether or not a driver can park from a long distance. 4) The main point is to form a number of forms when seeing the shape of an excursion ship as a basic hub, to make it possible in terms of see it, and to make it possible for a driver to recognize it from the front direction of 360 degrees with the outer light projected, to make it possible for him to recognize it from the front direction of 360 degrees, and to make it possible for a flood control by using a waterproof string, thereby making it possible for a driver to see whether or not a driver can park from a long distance.
5) Drawings: The defendant's products are indicated in the Appendix 2. B. The defendant's products are indicated in the Appendix 1, 2 (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant's products"), each of which is the defendant's products for parking lots, and "Defendant's products 2".
(C) The Plaintiff manufactured and sold the instant design and filed a complaint against the Defendant and its representative director under the charge of violating the Design Protection Act. On June 20, 2016, the public prosecutor in charge of the Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s design and the suspect’s representative director”) compared the design of this case and the design executed by the Defendant and the suspect (hereinafter the Defendant and the representative director’s representative director) and then rendered a disposition for lack of evidence due to lack of evidence.
2 The Plaintiff is liable for damages against Dazex Co., Ltd. on the ground of the instant design right infringement at the Seoul Central District Court.