beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) Date of application/registration date/registration number of the registered design of this case: A product subject to B/C/D2: C/D (rush3) design right holder: Plaintiff 4: A description and drawings of the design of this case (attached Form 1):
(b) The design subject to confirmation is a design with respect to a tent for astronomical purchase, etc., and the description and drawings of the design are as shown in Appendix 2.
C. 1) The Defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial to confirm the scope of a registered design of this case by asserting that the challenged design does not correspond to the registered design of this case and does not belong to the scope of the registered design of this case. 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated the instant case as 2014Da2999, and rendered the instant trial ruling citing the Defendant’s petition on February 16, 2015 on the ground that “the challenged design does not correspond to the registered design of this case and does not belong to the scope of the registered design of this case.”
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 7, Eul's 5, and the purport of whole pleading
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the registered design of this case and the design subject to confirmation are similar to the shape in which three dynamics are formed from the lower time to the lower time of the transaction, such as a tent purchase, etc., a part of which is a part of the person’s view at the time of use, and a part of the time of use, which is a part of the person’s attention, to attract attention, and light is similar to the shape in which light is surveyed only through the first and the third core.
Therefore, when preparing for and observing the two designs as a whole, it is a similar design that has no particular difference in the depth of the body that sees a person to view as a whole.
Thus, the challenged design falls under the scope of protection of the registered design of this case, and the trial decision of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful in conclusion.
3...