Scope of interested parties entitled to request a trial for invalidation of a utility model.

Interested persons entitled to request a trial for invalidation of a utility model shall include those who are likely to suffer or to suffer damage on duty as a result of the concern that they may have set up against the owner of the utility model right.

Article 25 of the Utility Model Act; Article 18 of the Utility Model Act; Article 24 of the Utility Model Act

claimant

Patent Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

A person shall be appointed.

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the person who has been requested for adjudication.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined by the attorney of the respondent.

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below held that the utility model (registration No. 1 omitted) and the registered (registration No. 2 omitted) utility model are the same structure to be sealed in the demand home formed on a lid unit with the upper end of the container. However, even if there is any difference in the two, it shall be deemed as belonging to the identity of the latter professional engineer, since the former is recognized as merely a modification of the latter's design, it shall be recognized as a new device, and there is no error in incomplete deliberation or law violation of empirical rules. The argument is groundless.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

An interested party entitled to file a petition for a trial on the invalidation of a utility model like this case includes a person who is likely to suffer occupational damage or damage after the date of the trial (see Supreme Court Decision 62Hu14, Feb. 28, 1963). According to the facts recognized by the original trial, the claimant is a person who is a device of a utility model similar (registration No. 1 omitted) and is the same (registration No. 2 omitted), and at the same time the device is a similar (registration No. 2 omitted), and can be recognized by evidence No. 5 and No. 6 in filing a petition for a trial on the invalidation of a utility model as seen above, since it is reasonable to view that the above act constitutes an interested party in the petition, and it is reasonable to view that there is no objection to the petition for a trial on the invalidation of the utility model as alleged by the claimant, and that there is no objection to the petition for a trial on the invalidation of the utility model as alleged by the claimant.

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 judges.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)