The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Whether the design is similar or not should be determined depending on whether a person who observess the appearance as a whole, not individually prepared for each element comprising the design separately, but caused another person to feel a different aesthetic sense. If the dominant characteristics are similar, it should be deemed as similar even if there is a somewhat different difference from the detailed point.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu597, Jun. 14, 2012). In such a case, not only when the design is used, but also when the appearance of the product was traded, the depth of the product should also be considered.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu265, May 13, 2010). Meanwhile, in a case where the common part of both designs is essential to secure the function of a product, the importance of both designs is low. As such, solely on the basis that these parts are similar, both designs are not similar.

However, in the event that there are alternative shapes that can be selected to secure the function of a product, such alternative shapes are not essential to secure the function of the product. In this case, the importance of the design should not be lowered in determining the similarity of design solely on the ground that they are merely related to the function.

2. In light of the above legal principles and the record, we examine whether the registered design (registration number C) of this case, which uses goods as “cargo car tools”, is similar to the prior design as indicated in the judgment below.

Prior designs to the decision of the court below on the registered design of this case

A. The two designs body forms a unit of a rectangular body shape on the left-hand side of the body body body, and the rectangular body shape formed on the front is cut down to the left-hand side of the body by 45∑ 45· 45.