(b) The level of objective creativity as a requirement for design registration;

(c) The case holding that objective creativity cannot be recognized because the applicant’s length expressed in the door for direct use is not different from the registered design in black solid lines, unlike the registered design in which the length of the application consists of two parallel lines, since the yellow solid lines and yellow yellow lines were used, but the overall core of the application is not different;

B. The objective creativity required by the Design Act is highly creative, i.e., a unique device that is not similar to all the past or present devices, and thus, a design registration under the Design Act may be granted if an aesthetic value, other than the former design, is recognized as a whole, to the extent that such an aesthetic value is recognized as different from the previous design, on the basis of the past and present devices, since it is merely a commercial and functional alteration of a publicly known device, unless an aesthetic value, different from the previous and present devices, is recognized as a whole, even if it is partially recognized as non-obviousness.

(c) The case holding that it is not possible to recognize objective creativity because the dominant characteristics of the application, which is to be expressed in the door for direct use, are similar to those of the registered design in black solid lines, using yellow solid lines and yellow yellow yellow lines with the beam different from those of the registered design in black solid lines;

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The similarity of a design shall not be separately compared to each element comprising the design separately, but it shall be determined depending on whether a person in charge of observation of the appearance of the design as a whole causes different aesthetic sense. If the dominant characteristics are similar, even if there are some differences in detail, the two chairpersons should be deemed similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1653, Feb. 23, 1990). Furthermore, the objective creativity required by the Design Act is not high level of originality, i.e., unique characteristics that are not similar to those in the past or past, and it is not similar to those in the past or past, so a combination of aesthetic devices that new aesthetic sense is recognized, and thus, a design registration under the Design Act may be granted to the extent that the former president recognizes the aesthetic value different from the former president (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1295, Feb. 9, 190).

From this point of view, in comparison with the principal source and the registered design, the two chairpersons are basically identical in that the product to be expressed is directly used door-to-door synthetic resin and the shape of the saw wheels of the transferred flag, such as photographic film, at the left end of the original form, and at the right edge, the small hole is connected to the original form, and at the right edge, the shape of the two chairpersons is basically identical in that the parallel line is crossing on the surface of film at specified intervals at specified intervals, and the parallel lines are formed vertically and vertically, and the parallel lines are divided into length, and the registered design is all black solid lines. However, the registered design is all black solid lines, but the yellow solid lines are cut off, and the registered design is cut off, and the new yellow lines are cut off, and the new yellow lines are cut off, and the new yellow lines are cut off, and the new yellow lines are cut off, and the new yellow lines are cut off, and the new yellow lines are cut off, and the new yellow lines are cut off, and the new yellow lines are cut off.

However, even though there is a little difference between the two chairpersons that the main lines used yellow solid lines and black thick lines on the crossing lines, the overall core is not different, and the controlling characteristics are not similar, and such a difference in aesthetic sense is likely to be easily created by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design of this case belongs by the registered design. In other words, it is difficult to recognize the objective creativity of the main line because it is based on the commercial and functional transformation of the registered design that was publicly announced before the application for the registration of the main Chapter.

Therefore, the original adjudication to the same purport is right and wrong, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the identity and creativity of the design, such as the theory of the lawsuit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the original decision, it is clear that the court below judged the similarity of the two chairpersons' intention as well as the overall shape, especially in comparison with the color and thicking of the crossing line. Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment below is just a misunderstanding of the reasoning of the judgment below.

3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)