Whether a trial to confirm the scope of a right to a design that is not conducted or intended by the other party is legitimate (negative)

A request for a trial to confirm the scope of a right to a design that is not conducted or intended to be conducted by a person who made a request for trial shall be dismissed as illegal because there is no interest in the request for trial.

Article 69 of the Design Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 135(1) of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Hu69 delivered on July 27, 1982, 85Hu48 and 49 delivered on October 22, 1985 (Gong1985, 1553) Supreme Court Decision 85Hu48 and 49 delivered on October 22, 1985 (Gong1985, 1553) Supreme Court Decision 94Hu2179 delivered on June 29, 195 (Gong195Ha, 2587)

Sims Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Appellant (Patent Attorney Seo Sang-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 94Hu920 Delivered on November 21, 1995

Korean Intellectual Property Office trial decision 95Da1370 dated March 13, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. All costs of appeal are assessed against the claimant.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

A) A request for a trial to confirm the scope of a right to a design under subparagraph (a) which does not carry out or intend to carry out an appeal shall be dismissed on the ground that there is no interest in the trial because the claimant has no interest.

According to the records, the Speaker who is currently working for the respondent is recognized as the Speaker without identity with the Speaker (A) and there is no proof of the possibility that the respondent may work for the Speaker (A) in the future. Accordingly, even if the Speaker becomes final and conclusive that the above-mentioned Speaker belongs to the scope of the right of the registered design of this case, the res judicata does not affect only the Speaker (A) and it does not affect the res judicata, and therefore, the court below's action which dismissed the claim of this case on account of its illegality is just, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding legal principles, omission of judgment, or incomplete hearing, such as the argument.

The assertion that the design of this case did not determine whether the claim of this case falls under the scope of the right of the registered design of this case on the premise that the claim of this case is lawful does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal against the original decision of the court below that deemed the claim of this case unlawful. All the arguments are without merit

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing claimant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)