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. The Defendant’s registered design (Evidence No. 3) 1)/ the filing date of the application/registration date of the Defendant: The product subject to the design of No. 30-045026/26/27 March 27, 2006: the description of the design of the astronomical Madul-3) design and the main drawings: [Attachment 1]; B. Prior Designs No. 1 (Evidence No. 6-7, 8) Japan’s Ecuad-cul-culon (No. 6-7, 8) published from 191 to 192, and its drawings [Attachment 2].
2) A prior design 2 (Evidence 7) published in the Design Gazette No. 30-0426069 of September 19, 2006, is a "astronomical finishing material," and its drawings (attached Form 2); 3-1 through 3-5 (Evidence 8) of prior designs on March 23, 2004, published in the Design Gazette No. 20-0346707 of the Utility Model Gazette, and the drawings (attached Form 2) are as follows.
4) Prior design 4 (Evidence 9) published on December 1, 2003 in the Design Gazette No. 30-038951 of the Design Gazette of December 1, 2003, the drawings (attached Form 2; 5) prior design 5 (Evidence 10 of the Design Gazette of June 1, 199 (Evidence 10 of the attached Table 10) are “astronomical crowdfunding” published in the Design Gazette No. 30-023804 of the Design Gazette of June 1, 199, and the drawings are as shown in Paragraph 5 of the attached Table 2.
C. On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted, against the Defendant, that “The registered design of this case falls under Article 5(1) of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same) because it is similar to the prior design 2 and the prior design 3-5, and the registered design of this case falls under Article 5(1) of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply). The instant registered design falls under Article 5(2) of the former Design Protection Act and thus, its registration should be invalidated.” 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a request for a trial to invalidate the registration of the registered design of this case.