logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2019.02.22 2018허7514
거절결정(디)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Presumed factual basis

A. The filing date/application number 1) of the instant design (Evidence 2, 5, 11) / the filing date/application number: B/C 2: D3: The description of the design and the main drawings of the design (attached Form 1). (b) The prior designs 1) are registered on June 12, 2014 and publicly notified in the official report publicly notified by the European Trademark Office (OHM) of the European Community Organization (OHM) published on June 26, 2014, as the design (design number: No. 2480921-007). The drawings (attached Form 2) are as follows.

2) Date of application 2(a) of a prior design : Date of application / Registration / Date of publication of registration / Date of publication of registration / Registration : The product subject to design on March 18, 201 / May 31, 2012 / June 15, 2012 (No. 30-0647038(b) of a design: The description of the design and the main drawings of the design: (a) the description is as shown in [Attachment 3].

C. On February 1, 2017, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the following: “The instant design was not consistently prepared with the serial numbers of the drawings; one of the fixed holes indicated in the drawing 1.2 does not appear in the drawing 1.1; thus, it does not constitute an industrial-use design falling under the main sentence of Article 33(1) of the Design Protection Act due to a disagreement in drawings; and is the same as the prior design 1 in the instant design. The comparative design was the design concerning “landscape, etc.” published on June 17, 2013 in the registration design publicly announced on June 17, 2013, and was not submitted as the prior design. The Plaintiff did not simply constitute merely a combination of the instant design and thus, constitutes Article 33(2) of the Design Protection Act; thus, the Plaintiff cannot obtain design registration as an “the additional drawing” and “the additional drawing” as the “the additional drawing of 14.21.21” on April 3, 2017.

arrow