logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.07.07 2015노4657
디자인보호법위반
Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial on invalidation of registration of a design with respect to a design registered by Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A’s design”), and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision accepting the claim of the injured party on December 5, 2014 (the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal 2014) (the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal 591). The said trial decision became final and conclusive, and the Defendant’s design does not fall under the scope of the injured party’s right to design (the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal 2015 Patent Tribunal 3354). In light of the fact that the injured party filed a lawsuit for revocation as the Patent Court 2015Hu72855, the Defendants infringed the injured party’s right to design.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged is a business entity established for the purpose of miscellaneous, fashion goods, and wholesale and retail business of household goods in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and 101, and Defendant B is a director of the above business entity.

A. From December 2, 2013 to January 2, 2014, Defendant B, the Defendant, on December 13, 2013, manufactured damp-style products with similar shapes, which are similar to the design registration number 30-0721541, to the Korean Intellectual Property Office on December 13, 2013, with the Defendant’s design right as the victim’s human rights holder by selling them in the Internet Open Market, Auction, 11, 11, and social mail, etc.

B. Defendant A Co., Ltd. infringed the victim’s design right in relation to the Defendant’s business at the above date, time, and place.

3. The lower court’s determination is based on the following facts duly admitted and examined: ① Defendant A Co., Ltd. against the victim to the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board.

arrow