[실용신안등록무효][집31(6)특,238;공1984.3.1.(723) 325]
Registration as a utility model for a device that has changed only the structure, which does not result in an inventive step in the effects of action;
In the case of a utility model, unlike the Speaker, there should be a certain degree of the creation of a new technical idea available for industrial purposes. However, if materials, structure or form are not changed, and if it does not result in any action or effective progress due to the change, it cannot be said that it is a device eligible for registration as a utility model.
Articles 2, 5(2), and 19 of the Utility Model Act
Seoul High Court Decision 80Hu76 delivered on October 26, 1982
Hyundai Pharmaceutical Industry Corporation
Co., Ltd.
On June 16, 1983, the Appellate Trial Decision No. 34 of 1982
The appeal is dismissed.
Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.
The grounds of appeal by the appellant are examined.
In determining whether or not a device is identical or similar to a device different from a utility model applied for registration, the theory is that the external device related to the shape, structure, or combination of each product becomes a major criteria for determining whether or not the device is identical or similar to the device applied for registration. On the other hand, the device is a device that can obtain registration of a utility model, if the device is different from the design whose external shape of the product is only the external shape of the product, or the creation of a new technical idea that can be used in the industry achieved by the innovation of the union, and it is only a device that can be used in the industrial sector achieved by the external shape of the product, the structure, or the innovation of the union.
In light of the record, comparing the design of the utility model device of this case (from the next date to the design of this case) and the design of Gap evidence 4 (from the next date), it is just to see that it is identical to the addition of the device of this case to the new device of this case (1) 2) to the new structure of the device of this case (1) 1 (2) stalves attached with stalves (2) stalves) and the addition of the stalves (3) inside the stalves of this stalves (3) with the new device of this case (4) 207 stalves (1) 2007 stalves (1) 2007 stalves (1) 4) 2007 stalves (1) stalves (4) stalves) stalves (1) stalves (1) stalves) with the new device of this case.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young