In a case where Gap asserted that the product subject to registered design cannot be recognized as being traded independently in the ordinary state and that it does not fall under "goods" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Design Protection Act, and that the registered design does not fall under "goods" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Design Protection Act, and the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the registered design, in light of all the circumstances, including the manufacturing method of the temp lamps, etc. used by the aforementioned temp, the case holding that the above trial decision was lawful, on the grounds that the possibility of being traded independently and the possibility of compatibility can be a design under the former Design Protection Act.

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that “A” does not constitute a “goods” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act, and thus, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Commission rejected a trial for invalidation of the registration of a registered design, on the ground that “B”, the owner of a design right, which is an owner of a design right, shall not be deemed an independent product traded in the ordinary state, and the compatibility of the registered design cannot be recognized as well as the possibility of compatibility.”

The case holding that although it is reasonable to see that "the framework of the compact lamps for motor vehicles", which is the product subject to registered design, is not a finished product, it is not a finished product, it is reasonable to see that it is a component of theme lamps. However, in light of the manufacturing method of theme lamps, which is manufactured by combining the half-out PCB plate with a single body and combining it with a hring, it is not necessary to manufacture it together with other parts that constitute the hring, and if it meets the standards, it would be possible to use it by combining and assembling other reflects and PCB plate, and in fact, many domestic and foreign enterprises sell products that have the same or similar shape and function as the product subject to registered design, and in the case of theme lamps which Gap manufactures and sells, the parts are purchased from a foreign country without manufacturing them and assembled, and the possibility that they can be sold separately from the design subject to the registered design decision under the Design Protection Act is legitimate, taking account of the possibility that they will be traded separately.

Article 2 subparag. 1 (see current Article 2 subparag. 1), Article 5(1) (see current Article 33(1)), and Article 75(1) (see current Article 166(1)) of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

April 3, 2020

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 20, 2019 on the case No. 2019Da503 shall be revoked.

1. Presumed factual basis

(a) The registered design of the instant case (Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the A);

(1) Date of application/registration date/registration number: No. 1 of similar No. 1 of November 14, 2011 (registration number 1 omitted) / March 28, 2013

2) Goods which are the subject of design: the sirens of the compact lamps for motor vehicles

3) Explanation and main drawings of the design: as shown in the attached list.

4) Right holder: Defendant

B. Details of the instant trial decision

1) On February 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial on invalidation of the registration of the instant registered design against the Defendant, the owner of the registered design of this case, who is the owner of the registered design of this case, by asserting that the registered design of this case does not fall under “goods” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “former Design Protection Act”) and thus, its registration should be invalidated, on the ground that the registered design of this case ought to be invalidated because it falls under the registered design in violation of the main sentence of Article 5(1) of the former Design Protection Act.

2) After examining the above request for a trial, the Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's request for a trial on September 20, 2019, on the ground that the registered design of this case fell under "goods" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Design Protection Act and constitutes an industrial-use design under the main sentence of Article 5 (1) of the same Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

In a registration invalidation trial on the basic design (registration number 1 omitted) of the registered design of this case filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that denies the goods of the basic design of this case, and again, despite the rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Plaintiff in the litigation on the confirmation trial to confirm the scope of rights and the revocation trial decision on the trial decision regarding the registered design of this case filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, the Defendant repeatedly asserts that the Plaintiff dispute the goods of the registered design of this case by filing the registration invalidation trial of this case and the litigation on the revocation of the trial decision, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is against the litigation economy and against the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive litigation.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 14 and 15, the defendant filed a motion against the plaintiff and the non-party (hereinafter "the plaintiff, etc.") to confirm the scope of right of the registered design of this case on December 6, 2017 (No. 2017Da3856). The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the above motion on the ground that the design subject to confirmation does not fall under the scope of right of the registered design of this case. The defendant's motion to seek cancellation of the above trial decision of the court (No. 2019No. 1292, hereinafter "related lawsuit"), and the plaintiff, etc. asserted that the registered design of this case was defective in the above litigation and that the grounds for invalidation of the registered design of this case cannot be acknowledged as being identical to the basic design of this case, and that the plaintiff, etc.'s motion to invalidate the registered design of this case cannot be seen as being similar to the registered design of this case 2 of this case on December 14, 2018.

(1) However, res judicata is binding upon a final and conclusive judgment on the same subject matter between the same parties. The subject matter of a lawsuit seeking revocation of a trial decision is illegality of a trial decision or a decision by the Intellectual Property Tribunal and the grounds for the judgment on the individual means of attack and defense are not res judicata. The subject matter of the lawsuit is different from the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case as the defendant's decision's decision on the propriety of a specific subject matter of the registered design does not belong to the scope of the right of the registered design of this case. In addition, there was no decision on the grounds for the invalidation of the registered design of this case due to lack of the goods of the registered design of this case. Thus, res judicata effect of the previous judgment cannot be deemed to affect this case. ② Since the subject matter of the trial in this case is the basic design of this case, the subject matter of the trial in this case is the basic design of this case, even if the relevant trial decision which is the trial decision on invalidation of the registered design of this case becomes final and conclusive, the defendant's assertion is without merit

3. Determination as to the illegality of the trial decision of this case

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) Although the subject matter of the registered design of this case is indicated in the “Public Notice on the Classification of Design Products” (Public Notice No. 2011-4 of the Korean Intellectual Property Office Notice No. 2011-4, hereinafter the “Public Notice of the Korean Intellectual Property Office”), the Public Notice of the Korean Intellectual Property Office is merely aimed at maintaining consistency in preparing an application for design registration and using a uniform name at the time of filing the application, and is not aimed at determining whether the registered design of this case satisfies the product, and thus, whether the registered design of this case satisfies the product should be separately determined.

B) The “tamp of the compact lamps,” which is the subject matter of the registered design of the instant case, is one component used as a component for the manufacture of the final product, such as the “motor vehicle round lamps,” and each component part can be used together with the component parts designed to be linked with one set, and each component part can be used together with the component parts produced through the process of manufacturing the parts. As such, it is used in the manufacture of the final product by the manufacturing or self-production of the final product manufacturer’s order, it does not constitute an article that can be traded independently under ordinary circumstances.

C) The subject matter of the registered design of this case is produced by the gold model manufactured in a specific shape and shape based on the initial design and can be used only for the first designed final product due to the difference in its specification, combination home shape, etc.

D) Furthermore, it is impossible to replace the constituent parts of the instant registered design, inasmuch as the final product, using the string method at the final stage of its production, which is the subject of the instant registered design, combines the string with the string, making it difficult for the general public or the relevant commercial business operators to dismantle or dismantle the product. Moreover, neither the original Defendant nor other identical business operators nor the distributors independently deal with “the string of the string light of the car-use compact lamps,” which is the subject of the instant registered design.

E) Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the structure and form of the registered design of this case, the combination structure of the parts of the registered design of this case with other parts of the final product, and the transaction relationship in the market, etc., goods subject to the registered design of this case cannot be subject to independent transaction because they are not compatible and are unlikely to be interchangeable, and there is no possibility of independent transaction. Thus, the registered design of this case constitutes a design lacking goods, and thus, the trial decision of

2) The defendant's assertion

A) Pursuant to Article 11(2) of the former Design Protection Act and Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the registered design of the instant case was registered based on “car Headlights” specified in the Notice of the Korean Intellectual Property Office having the effect of statutory order by specifically classifying and publicly announcing the products subject to design registration pursuant to Article 11(2) and Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, which supplement the requirements for the registration of designs under Article 2(Definitions and Article 5(1) of the same Act, and thus, the registered design

B) Furthermore, ① the product to which the registered design of this case was applied was published and advertised in the vehicle-related magazine, and the product of the same kind as the product of the registered design of this case was sold domestically and overseas, as well as the Plaintiff also advertised the product of the same kind as the product of the registered design of this case independently from the product of the registered design of this case. ② The registered design of this case is not only independent product as corporeal movables, but also its product can be designed and manufactured so as to be dismantled and assembled without any damage by various methods, such as a combination of clamp and rubber seal, other than the ultra-frequency melting method, with the interior of theme, and ③ the product of the registered design of this case can be used as a siren such as a light, illumination, etc., and assembled in a way that can be replaced or replaced after assembling, and the product of the registered design of this case can be traded independently or likely to be traded with the product of this case.

C) Therefore, the instant registered design falls under a design that can be used for an industrial purpose under the main sentence of Article 5(1) of the former Design Protection Act, and the instant trial decision in conclusion is not unlawful.

B. Whether the registered design of this case is subject to the goods stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Design Protection Act

1) Relevant legal principles

The term “goods” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Design Protection Act refers to a specific corporeal movable property that is independent. In order for such goods to become a design registration, they must be subject to independent transactions in the ordinary state, and in the case of parts, they must be interchangeable again. However, it does not necessarily require real transactions in the real transaction society and exchange with other goods, but is only subject to design registration if there is possibility of such independent transactions and compatibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Hu2900, Apr. 27, 2001; 2003Hu274, Jul. 9, 2004).

2) Facts of recognition

B In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged in the entries and images of the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 9, 13, and 16 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

A person shall be appointed.

(A) Theme lamps 1) Theme lamps used for cars, heavy equipment, etc. shall be made by making reflectors and PCB flag plates a combination of them in a single body and combining them with the hump, and shall be manufactured by combining them.

B) In 2012, the term “motor vehicle special model vehicle”, which is a motor vehicle-related magazine, was introduced by various products manufactured and sold by the Defendant (name 1 omitted). Of them, the term “LED original test lamps” as well as a finished photograph of the “LED original test lamps (MOLN: KT11-R)” as the right photograph, such as the front photograph, and under the name of the product, the phrase “the sirens and reflects of this product can not be used as a patent application without permission.” Under the above phrase, the phrase “LED WUP” is written, and the phrase “LED WUP” as well as the phrase “the parts of this case’s registered design” is also introduced by various kinds of pictures, such as pictures, which appear to have been applied to “the parts of this case’s design” and “the same type of pictures” as “the parts of this case’s design” as “the parts of this case’s design.”

C) On the website (www.S Long Llamp.com) operated by the Plaintiff (www name 2 omitted), the “frithm lamps” and “frithm lamps” are introduced, which are finished goods. The Internet shopping mall in Korea is 11 per cent, and the sirens are separately sold in the roof and cuble.

D) On the website (name 2 omitted) operated by the Plaintiff, the form of “fluoring trucks” such as “fluoring trucks” and “fluoring lamps” were introduced. On the website (www.truck-lite.com) of Truk-Leage, a professional company located in the U.S., the headquarters in the U.S., the website of Truk-Leage (www.m.com) was introduced, including “W.tru-lite.com,” and various colors and shapes.

E) On the other hand, on November 29, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for design registration (registration number 2 omitted) on March 27, 2018, by designating goods subject to design as “work, etc. sirens” and applying for design registration of the same form as “,” which was subject to design registration.

3) Specific review

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to see that the “slick Lighting,” which is the subject of the registered design of this case, is a part of the interior lamps, not a complete product.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the above facts and evidence No. 8 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the goods subject to the registered design of this case, even if they are rare in cases where they are subject to independent trade among ordinary consumers, shall be deemed to be subject to independent trade, and they shall be deemed to be subject to exchange, and they shall be deemed to be subject to separate trade.

① In light of the manufacturing method of the tamp, it is difficult to see that the manufacturer of the complete design of this case, who is the subject of the registered design of this case, is able to purchase the tamp only if it meets the standards and to use the tamper in combination with other reflectors and PCB plates. In light of the fact that the tamper, which is the finished part of the registered design of this case, was made by combining the tamper and PCB flag board with a single body and combining it with the tamper. In light of the manufacturing method of the tamper, it is difficult to deem that the tamper has to have the need to manufacture the tamper with other parts constituting the tamper, and the Plaintiff appears to have the possibility that many domestic and foreign companies are tamped with the tamper of the registered design of this case, and it is also possible that the tamper of the registered design of this case had the same shape and function as the tamper of the tamper.

② In addition, considering the above characteristics of the registered design of this case and the manufacturing method of finished products, even if different companies were manufactured by each other, if they meet the different standards, they may be purchased and replaced from among the sirens of the compact lamps for automobiles, so the registered design of this case can be seen as being suitable for compatibility. Therefore, the registered design of this case can also be seen as having the possibility of compatibility.

③ Although the “the classification list of goods” of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, which was in force at the time of filing an application for the design registration of the instant registered design, is intended to maintain the consistency in the preparation of the application for design registration and use a uniform name of the goods, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a design identical or similar to the registered design of the instant case with the “the classification list of goods” in the notification of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, even though the product nature of the registered design of the instant case is not immediately recognized, as well as multiple designs have been registered regarding the “automobile lux lux lux,” which is the same as the product of the registered design of the instant case, and the Plaintiff also filed an application for registration of a design whose function and shape are identical or similar to the registered design of the instant case by determining the product as “work, etc.”

4) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A) In order to prevent the inflow of damps, dusts, etc. of final products using the registered design of this case, the Plaintiff asserts that, in addition to the possibility of inflow of damps, dust, etc., it is not possible to apply a clock combination method due to the problems that continuously occur during operation, not only the possibility of spreading damps, dust, etc., but also difficult to detect the shock. Accordingly, it is impossible for the general public to dismantle or dismantle the final products using the registered design of this case, and even if the ordinary business operator dismantles them in this field, it is impossible to replace the component parts because it is difficult to replace the component parts because it is difficult for the ordinary business operator to dismantle them, and therefore, any component part cannot be traded independently only with one component under ordinary conditions, and there is no possibility of its compatibility or compatibility.

However, the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized as being comprehensively based on the overall purport of pleadings, are ① the manufacturer of finished products, i.e., the manufacturer of the registered design of this case, can purchase only “the car-based compact lamps lamps,” which is the subject matter of the registered design of this case, and combine and assemble other reflectors and PCB press plates, and ② since there is no limitation on the assembly method for manufacturing the final finished products by assembling different parts from the subject matter of the registered design of this case, the manufacturer of the completed products is able to manufacture the complete products by adopting a variety of assembly methods, such as clamnings, other than the super-frequency melting method claimed by the Plaintiff as necessary, considering various circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that there is no possibility of independent trade or compatibility of the subject matter of the registered design of this case solely on the above circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

B) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that even if the specifications of some parts of the completed product are manufactured, the relevant parts may be subject to independent trade because their specifications are mutually different, and that the subject matter of the registered design of this case is not likely to be subject to independent trade because their specifications and specifications are not determined.

However, even if the dimension or standard of the parts is not determined in Korea Industrial Standards, etc., if only the parts are replaced and used, and the size of the parts can be appropriately adjusted and manufactured at the request of the ordering person. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that there is no possibility of independent transaction or compatibility of the goods subject to the registered design of this case solely on the above circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(v) arranging the results of the review;

In full view of the above contents as seen above, the term “slick light light,” which is the subject of the registered design of this case, can be the subject of design under the former Design Protection Act.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the registered design of this case cannot be invalidated, and the conclusion is legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List of [Attachment] Registered Design]: Omitted

Judges Rohn-man (Presiding Judge) Kim Dong-dong

Note 1) The interior lamps are lamps located behind the vehicle, which are located behind the vehicle, and the white lamps, brings, and wing wings, which turn on on on-line at the time of using a backline, are used as lamps, brings, wings, etc., and one of them is “competing light” (see, e.g., e., g., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., e., e.s.

Note 2) See the briefs dated January 28, 2020.