Whether a claimant's interest has ceased to exist where the parties have agreed not to dispute during the continuation of a trial for invalidation of design registration (affirmative)

According to the provisions of Article 68 (1) of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 5354 of Aug. 22, 1997), a trial for invalidation of the design may be requested only by interested parties and examiners. Thus, even if the interested parties at the time of a trial request, if there is an agreement between the parties not to dispute during the trial, the interest shall be extinguished unless there is any special circumstance.

Article 68 (1) of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 5354 of Aug. 22, 1997)

Supreme Court Decision 79Hu95 delivered on September 30, 1980 (Gong1980, 13304) Supreme Court Decision 89Hu2151 Delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong190, 2422)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Cho Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 99Heo901 delivered on July 1, 1999

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 68 (1) of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 5354 of Aug. 22, 1997), a trial for invalidation of the design may be requested only by interested parties and examiners. Even if a party has an interest at the time of a trial request, if the parties agree not to dispute during the trial, the interest shall be extinguished unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Hu95, Sept. 30, 1980; 89Hu2151, Oct. 23, 1990).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the defendant's right to the registered design of this case (the application of this case was filed on September 25, 1996, the establishment registration of October 10, 1997, the (registration number omitted) to be manufactured and sold without permission, and found on May 1, 1998 that the plaintiff and the non-party (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") infringed the registered design right of this case. The defendant did not dispose of, sell, store, display (including advertising) the infringing articles of the registered design right of this case to the plaintiff, and if the defendant agreed that the registered design right of this case was revoked by the plaintiff et al. for the reason that the registered design of this case was revoked by the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al. of this case or the registered design right of this case was revoked by the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al. of this case to be removed from the registered design right of this case.

However, according to the fact-finding of the court below, since the fact that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on May 1, 1998 is recognized, unless there exist special circumstances such as that the agreement has no legal effect in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the defendant shall be deemed to have extinguished the interest in the claim for the trial of this case. The court below shall have determined that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void due to the defect in the process of establishment, since the defendant recognized the fact of infringement of the design right, which is the premise of the agreement, and thus, it cannot be determined that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void due to the defect in the process of establishment. However, if there is doubt about the validity of the agreement, the court below shall have further deliberated on the special circumstances related thereto, and shall have determined the validity thereof. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interested party under Article 68 (1)

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)