[권리범위확인][공1988.3.15.(820),456]
A. Criteria for determining similarity of a utility model
(b) The scope of rights of utility model rights registered, including publicly notified reasons;
C. Criteria for determining the scope of rights of registered utility models
(a)in determining whether a device is identical or similar to the right of a utility model on which the device is registered, comparative consideration should be given in addition to the technical device regarding the type, structure, combination, etc. of each product, as well as the use value, purpose of use, etc. of the device;
(b) Even if a utility model is included in the grounds for public notification in registering the utility model, the scope of the right shall not be extended to the grounds for public notification that is granted only to new professional engineers and that cannot be seen as an organic combination with new technical effects.
(c) The scope of rights to the professional engineer of a registered utility model shall be examined on the basis of the requests for registration in light of the provisions of Article 8(2) of the Utility Model Act, which provides that the scope of requests for registration shall be specified in the application for registration of the
Articles 5, 19, and 8 of the Utility Model Act
A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Hu15 delivered on January 22, 1985, 86Hu22 delivered on December 9, 1986, 85Hu45 delivered on February 10, 1987, 85Hu56 delivered on July 23, 1987, 86Hu178 delivered on July 23, 1987, and 86Hu179 delivered on September 8, 1987
Patent Attorney Appellant et al., Counsel for the defendant
Patent Attorney Hong Jae-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 86 No. 86 dated April 21, 1987
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In determining whether a device is identical with or similar to a registered utility model right, the scope of the right should be compared by considering not only the technical device related to the type, structure, or combination of each product, but also the utility model such as the utility model use value and utility model, etc. of the device. In addition, even if the utility model registration includes the reason for public notice, the utility model right can not be extended to the reason for public notice that is granted only to new professional engineers and that is not systematically combined with new technical effects (see Supreme Court Decision 85Hu45, Feb. 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 86Hu99, Sept. 8, 1987, etc.).
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the substance of this device was dried and has been installed in the upper part of the body, such as an open space, so that it can be cut to the upper part of the body, and that the upper part of the body is dried up (the upper part of the body, which was installed in the upper part of the body and the upper part of the body, and the upper part of the body, which was dried up to the upper part of the body, is dried up to the upper part of the body, and the upper part of the body, which was dried up to the upper part of the body and the upper part of the body, is dried up to the upper part of the body, and the upper part and the upper part of the body, which was dried up to the upper part of the body so that the upper part and the upper part of the body, which was dried up to the upper part, and the upper part and the upper part of the body, which was dried up to the upper part of the body and the outer part of the body.
In addition, in the application for registration of a registered utility model, the scope of the right to the technical engineer of the registered utility model should be examined on the basis of the scope of the request for registration in light of the provisions of Article 8(2) of the Utility Model Act, which provides that the scope of the request for registration shall be specified in the application for registration (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu22, Dec. 9, 1986). Thus, the court below recognized the scope of the request for registration based on the original design register as stated in its holding and judged that the technical summary of the device itself cannot be seen as the technical substance of the device in question and it cannot be seen as a single appeal to the contrary. All arguments are groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)