beta
Text
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 23, 2015 on the case No. 2014Da1944 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
In light of the above legal principles, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the title of each transactional statement, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the title of each transactional statement, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the title of each transactional statement, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the title of each transactional statement, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.
On April 25, 2016, K (J Research Institute in charge of the fact finding of April 28, 2016), from the Plaintiff (I) around 2009, K received the product of “each 2dole 500*250*130” from the Plaintiff (I) and recognized that the design is the same as the design of the No. 2 of the No. 2 of the No. 2 of the No. 2 of the No. 4, the above product name “each 2dole *900*400*400*200 of the No. 200 of the No. 201,” and “each 2dole 500*250130” refer to the shape of the product, the number of parts, the street, length of the product, and home. Accordingly, deeming that each of the above drawings is in accordance with the empirical rule, and thus, the product is publicly known or publicly known prior to the implementation of the design of each of the above urban design.
According to Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 through 24, and Eul evidence Nos. 5-2, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant supplied to the plaintiff several times the products of the name "Tru*900*400*200*" from March 23, 2009 to March 9, 2010, and "Tru*900*400*200*, respectively, 500*250*130", and the plaintiff also supplied to the J from April 2009 to June 2010.
However, in light of the following points, each of the above drawings alone is alone.