205Heo1615 (Registration invalidation)

Co., Ltd. (formerly changed mutual name Co., Ltd.)

Daejeon Taedong-gu Macong-dong

[Judgment of the court below]

Daejeon District Court Decision 200

[Defendant-Appellant]

Park Dok-ro

Daejeon Central District Court Decision 201Na2444

Patent Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

December 1, 2005

January 26, 2006

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 26, 2005 on the case No. 816 of 2004 is revoked.

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

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts

A. The registered complaint of this case

(1) The name of the device: Fluor of the floor of metal system.

(2) Date of application / Date of registration / Date of decision to maintain registration / Number of registration: April 3, 200 / July 5, 2000 / December 27, 2001 / No. 1962022 on December 27, 2001

③ The owner of the utility model right: the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff was registered as transfer from Nonparty to Nonparty)

4. In the case of the claims for utility model registration (the drawings are as shown in attached Form 1) a majority of the ridges (20) in the shape of the whistle and body (10) of the flag and body of the body (the plan shall be as shown in attached Form 1) are prepared in a fixed intervals. In forming the floor section (1) of the upper section on both sides of the lower part, the extended brick (21) shall be formed from both sides of the above Article (20) to the end of the lower part of the (11). The inside side of the utility model registration shall consist of the ridges of metal preparations with the characteristics of forming the extension home line (30).

나. 비교대상고안들 ( 각 도면은 별지 2 해당번호와 같다 ) ( 1 ) 비교대상고안 1 ( 1993. 2. 국내에서 반포된 잡지인 ' ARCHITECTURAL Design & Detail ' 에 게재된 ' 가나메루프의 사시도, 갑 제5호증의 1, 2 ) ‘ 금속제 양와 ( 洋瓦 ) ' 라는 표제 아래 ‘ 특허공법으로써 방수성능이 뛰어나다. 재질은 아크릴 강판, 스텐레스, 동판 등 가나메 제 ( 製 ) 이다 ' 라는 기재와 함께 별지 2의 가 .

(2) The Patent Model Gazette 4-46011, and evidence A 6 published on October 29, 1992) of the comparable High Court 2 (No. 4-46011, and evidence 6)

A device concerning the structure with a flag with a view to a certain time depending on the floor, where a studio-styler is attached. In the past, the detailed description of the device contains the following: "A part of the metal flag, such as the 5th degree, was mined directly, thereby forming a decoration of the protruding shape," and the shape of the shape, such as the 2b. paragraph, is urban.

C. (1) The Defendant filed an appeal for invalidation of the registration of the instant registered device on the ground that the instant registered device had no inventive step compared to the comparable device 1, 2, etc. (the Defendant added eight comparable designs, but omitted). The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on it as 2004Da816, and rendered a trial ruling accepting the Defendant’s claim on January 26, 2005 on the same ground as (2).

(2) The purpose of the instant petition for registration (A) is to provide the instant petition for registration with a studio ridge, where length is long and needs arise, and comparative petitions also have the same purpose as the instant petition for registration in light of the characteristics of the composition.

(B) Although all the elements of the instant design are not clearly indicated in each drawing of the comparative design, if a person who has ordinary knowledge in the field of the pertinent technology (hereinafter referred to as a "party business operator") is a person with ordinary knowledge in the pertinent design, it is not difficult to recognize that both sides of the upper body of the upper body of the floor of the original body of the instant design are the same as the upper body of the instant registered device (11). While there is no extension home line (30) in the instant registered device of the instant design, the comparative design also has the characteristics of the comparative device that creates a metal plate and a wheeler of the main body of the previous design of the instant registered device of the instant case, and the comparative device of the upper body of the upper body of the main body of the upper body of the instant registered device of the instant case is also equipped with the upper body of the main body of the instant registered device of the instant case (30).

(C) As above, insofar as the composition of the instant registered device and the comparable device is substantially the same, its effect is also the same.

(D) Accordingly, the registered device of this case is publicly known by the comparative prior to the filing of the application, and thus, it is not new or, at least, it is extremely easily designed by the party subject to comparison. Therefore, there is no inventive step.

[Evidence] Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 3-2, Evidence No. 5-1, 2, A-6, and evidence No. 13

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

가. 원고가 주장하는 심결취소사유의 요지 ( 1 ) 이 사건 등록고안은 용마루 기와의 길이를 일체로 길게 형성할 수 있는 특징이 있는데 비하여, 비교대상고안 1은 그 길이가 1m 남짓에 지나지 않고 이 사건 등록고안의 필수구성요소인 좌판 ( 11 ) 을 결여하고 있어 이 사건 등록고안과 다르다 . ( 2 ) 이 사건 등록고안의 연장홈선 ( 30 ) 은 일정한 곡률반경을 갖는 호 ( 狐 ) 로 이루어져 , 용마루 기와를 필요에 따라 상, 하로 훨 수 있게 하는 고유의 효과를 가지는데 비하여 , 비교대상고안들의 돌조는 단지 용마루 기와의 이음새로 사용되기 위한 것이거나 심미적 필요에 의하여 마련된 것에 지나지 않으며, 비교대상고안들에는 이 사건 등록고안의 연장홈선 ( 30 ) 에 관한 아무런 기재나 암시가 없다 . ( 3 ) 따라서 이 사건 등록고안과 비교대상고안들은 기술구성이 서로 다를 뿐 아니라 , 당업자가 비교대상고안들로부터 극히 용이하게 이 사건 등록고안에 이를 수도 없다 .

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

In addition to the argument that the trial decision in this case is identical to the summary of oil, the Defendant asserted that the nature of the technical composition does not change on the ground that the size with the floor of the 1st floor of the comparative high-level design 1 remains 1m. Of the registered design in this case, the composition of the coordinates (11) was publicly announced before the application, and the composition of the extension line (30) was merely a new name on the inside side of the extension line (21) and thus, it did not have any technical characteristics.

3. Determination

A. Technical characteristics of the instant registered device

According to Gap evidence 3-2, the detailed description and drawing of the invention in the specification of the instant registered device, "the registered device of this case" provides a metal ridge gate, which can be used to be honded in line with Han-style's grains as a result of enhancing construction and preventing water leakage by forming a route without a sound part. Unlike the previous technology, "A shall mix the brick of the flag and mond-shaped shape at intervals different from the previous one, so that it can be reduced from the upper part of the mond of the mond and the mond-side to the upper part of the mond to the upper part of the mond, the upper part of the mond and the upper part may be reduced to the upper part of the mond (11), and specifically, it is recognized that the upper part of the mond-shaped and the upper part to the effect that the upper part of the mond-shaped part of the mond and the upper part to the upper part of the 15th part of the mond-party.

According to the above facts, the registered complaint of this case consists of 20 square meters of the two sides at regular intervals in the direction of length depending on the ridge section -, and the two sides of each of the stoness, the two sides are formed together to the top (11), and the extension home line (21) formed inside the inner part of the extension stone, and the extension stone line (30) formed inside the top of the extension stone in the direction of the length (21) shall be deemed to be above - and the shape of the line shall be deemed to be newly constructed under the above (hereinafter referred to as 2's component 2'), and it is reasonable to see that the above extension of the shape of the line is made to be 1'the extension of the shape of the line as above (30's extension of the utility model registration within the registered complaint of this case, and 2's extension of the shape of the line shall be deemed to be 2's extension of the shape.

B. In comparison with the comparable device and the registered device of this case (1) newness of the registered device of this case

On the other hand, in light of the fact that the extension line of the stone table and the upper part of the stone board are in a straight line, the comparison table 1 shows in the comparison table 1 that "in accordance with the comparison table 1, the bridges in the shape of the bridges as above are composed of two parallels in the direction of length, each stone structure, and the top end up to the top of the bridges." Thus, one component of the registered device of this case was known prior to the comparison table 1. (On the other hand, the comparison table 2 cannot be deemed as maintaining the shape up to the line of the table of the stone board, and the bottom part of the table cannot be deemed as being protruding up by the comparison table 2, as it is indicated in the combination table 2, compared to the registered structure of the article in this case.

Then, as to whether the shape of each extension line was publicly announced by the above 1st line due to the extended home line 2 of the registered device elements of this case - 1, we can see that the comparison line 1 from the comparison line 1 to the front line of the plan, and the shape of the outer part of the plan can be seen as the home of the shape with the inner part of the plan, or that such brick line cannot be seen as being a new one with the inner part of the plan of this case, and it cannot be seen as a new one with the inner part of the plan of this case, and it cannot be seen as a new one with the inner part of the plan of this case, and it cannot be seen as a new one with the inner part of the plan of this case, and it cannot be seen as a new one with the inner part of the plan of this case, and it cannot be seen as a new one with the inner part of the plan of this case, and it cannot be seen as a new one with the inner part of the plan of this case, which has been formed with the inner part of the plan of the plan of this case.

Therefore, since all the elements of the instant registered complaint cannot be deemed to appear in the comparative complaint, it is not necessary to examine the remaining arguments by the parties regarding the length of the goods of the instant registered complaint and the comparative complaint 1, the instant registered complaint is new compared to the comparative complaint.

(2) The existence of inventive step of the instant registered device (A) as seen in the foregoing A, the technical feature of the instant registered device is extended (21).

Due to the extension home line (31) formed inside the inner side of the Tribunal, the shape of the coordinate (11) - as above - The home set up below is new due to the power of (class 2) floor and the entire floor of (class 2) above and below.

However, Kathrogs, in which the comparison table 1 is published, introduce the specifications, material, characteristics, etc. of construction parts by type of building. With respect to the comparison table 1, waterproof performance is outstanding as patent law as to the comparison table 1. It merely gives an explanation that "it is an Acryring steel board, studs, copper board, etc." There is no description about the composition or technical characteristics corresponding to components 2 in the registration board, and 2 in the previous comparison table also asserts that it is reasonable for the defendant to easily establish the composition and composition of the registered design of this case to make it easier for the comparison line to overcome the complexity of processing by putting some parts of the comparison table 1 from the comparison table 3, and that it is not reasonable for the defendant to introduce the new structure and composition of the design of this case to make it easier for the comparison table 2, as seen above, in light of the technical characteristics of the composition and composition of the registered design of this case.

The design of this case and the design of comparison are composed of both bodies and coordinatess with the ridges of ridges. In particular, whether an extended home line (including extension stones; hereinafter the same shall apply) is formed on the inside of the stone section (including extension stone; hereinafter the same shall apply) and whether the stone structure is combined with any structure on the left. As seen earlier, even if the house was formed on the inside of the stone section 1 of the comparative design, as shown above, as the extended home line (30) of the registered device of this case is formed, it is clear that the 1st of the comparative design of this case cannot be newly built on the top of the ridges, and since the 2nd of the comparative design of this case is completed by plicking or digging up in a vertical line, it cannot be said that the 2nd of the comparative design of this case is a new line or a new line.

As above, the comparative idea differs from the registered device of this case where the structure and shape of the coordinates and the stone combined with the coordinates are different from those of the registered device of this case, and as long as it is impossible to build and newly build the coordinates, the comparative idea cannot be deemed to refer to the registered device of this case from the comparative device just because the comparative device was made by using metal plates and a studs like the registered device of this case. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit. (c) The adjustment is without merit.

Therefore, the registered complaint of this case is non-obviousness compared to the comparative idea.

C. Sub-committee

Although there is no evidence to deny the nonobviousness and non-obviousness of the instant registered device compared to the comparable device, the instant trial decision is not exempt from revocation due to its illegality, since the instant registered device ought to be invalidated due to its lack of newness and non-obviousness, contrary to the conclusion.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is legitimate, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judge Choi Sung-sung

Judges Cho Young-soo

Judge Han Dong-soo

Attached 1 Main drawings of the instant petition for registration

Do 1 Do 2

Do3Do3Do4

Tra -

Attached 2 Drawings of comparative designs

(a) Comparison table 1

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Comparison 2