beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The filing date and the application number of the instant design: The name of the product: the drawings of the floor room room (attached Form 1) on January 20, 2015; 30-2015-30112: The name of the product: (b) the filing date and the registration date/registration number: the date of the prior design 1); the name of the product on July 27, 201; (c) the name of the product on December 28, 2012, No. 67510 (2) of the design : the drawings of a double floor of aluminium (attached Form 2).
C. On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for the pending design on January 20, 2015. On May 6, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rejected the registration of the pending design under Article 33(1)3 of the Design Protection Act, similar to the prior design. 2) On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for an appeal against the instant decision of refusal with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal. On May 29, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the said request with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal under Article 2015 Won3078. On October 8, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition on the grounds that the pending design fell under Article 33(1)3 of the Design Protection Act because it is similar to the prior design and cannot be registered.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the scope of similarity should be narrow due to structural limitations that make it impossible to change the design because the subject design is manufactured and sold in standardized form. Since the design of this case is used by attaching a different day on the flat in the time of using goods, ordinary consumers cannot view it from ordinary consumers, and even at the time of trading, it is meaningful as a factor that determines the ability to support the low-face structure, so the patent application design of this case is not similar to the prior design, and thus, the trial decision of this case is unlawful even if its registration is not rejected.
3. The application design of this case is filed.