beta
Text
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 8, 2019 on the case No. 1840 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) 1) Filing date of the registered design 1)/ registration date / registration number: A product subject to design C/D/E (2): F3) description of the design, and the main points and drawings of the creation: 4) applicant and owner of the design right listed in the Design Gazette: Defendant 5: G (Defendant representative director);
B. Prior Designs 1) Prior Designs 1 (No. 9) published on October 7, 2004 in the German Patent Gazette (registration number DE 103 103 13 969 B4) published on October 7, 2004, the specification of the invention in the name of "Guwds for the conciliation organization of the electric sets" was read by a drawing (no specific comparison is deemed to be the object of preparation). The detailed statement is omitted.
(2) 2) The design drawing relating to “I” supplied to H from January 31, 2015 by the Plaintiff from January 31, 2015, was urbanized with respect to prior designs 2 (Evidence A6 and 7).
(that is not subject to specific preparation, and detailed entry is omitted).
(1) On June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant for a trial to invalidate the registration of a registered design (2018Da1840). The Plaintiff asserted that the registered design should be invalidated because it constitutes not by the creator or his successor, but by since it is identical or similar to the prior design, or that it can be easily created from the prior design. (2) On January 8, 2019, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision not to accept the Plaintiff’s above request for a trial.
(hereinafter “instant trial decision”). 【The ground for recognition” did not have any dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1-3, 6-9, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination as to the illegality of the trial decision of this case
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) (1) The registered design is invalid under Article 121 (1) 1 and the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Design Protection Act, since the plaintiff's employee who created the registered design or his successor is not based on the plaintiff's application (2).