beta
Text
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 27, 2015 on the case No. 2014DaDa2973 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Registration number 1) / filing date / registration date: A product subject to design registration No. 512// May 12, 2008: A description and drawings of the slive design: as shown in attached Form 1; B. A design subject to design registration: a description and drawings of the lives prevention slives 3) design: as shown in attached Table 2; (c) the description and drawings of the lives prevention lives 2) design: C. On November 21, 2014, the Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff on November 21, 2014 that the design subject to confirmation sold by the Plaintiff is included in the scope of the right to the registered design of this case and claimed a confirmation of the scope of the right to the registered design.
2) On March 27, 2015, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered the instant trial decision by the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) the design similar to the registered design of the instant case and falls under the scope of the right; and (b) the Defendant’s request for a trial was accepted. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Determination as to whether the instant trial decision is justifiable
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion argues that: (a) the challenged design, which was commenced with Gap’s evidence Nos. 5 and 6 sold by the Plaintiff, or (b) the Defendant’s free working design, constitutes a design established with Gap’s evidence No. 11, which was sold by the Defendant; and (c) the instant trial decision otherwise determined is unlawful even if it does not fall under the scope of right
B. According to Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the design created in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 is similar to the design subject to confirmation as shown in the attached Table No. 3's Paragraph (1). 2) The period of publication of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 is the same as the design subject to confirmation. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the plaintiff for the supply of goods, and sold 7,726 "D bath safety intermediary" at the Cart national store from January 2006 to December 207, 2007.