2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Application design of this case

1) Application number / Application date: (Application Number omitted) / April 13, 2009

(b) Names of goods: English letters; and

3) Drawings: as shown in Appendix 1.

(b) A comparable design;

(a) Source: A design of a font published on the Internet (Internet address omitted) 2004 (the same shall apply to the design of omission of identification number stated in the design search system of the Korean Intellectual Property Office);

2) The shape and shape are as shown in Appendix 2.

C. Circumstances leading to the trial decision of this case

1) The Plaintiff filed an application for the instant design, but the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal of registration on the ground that the instant design is similar to the design publicly known on the Internet (Internet address omitted) prior to the filing of the application (hereinafter “non-examined design”). As such, the examiner decided that the design cannot be registered under Article 5(1)3 of the Design Protection Act.

2) On August 19, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board against the foregoing decision of refusal, but the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board also tried to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition on the ground that the design of the instant case was similar to the comparable design publicly notified prior to the filing of the application.

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The fonts should be determined more narrowly than the general goods, and the person in charge of determining similaritys shall be not a general consumer but a manufacturer and a printing business operator of the fonts. In such case, the design of this case differs in the shape, size, quality, etc. of the fonts in comparison with the comparative design, and the design of this case differs in the form and weight of the internal space, the direction of the font reduction, and the degree of toxicity differs in each individual character, so both characters are similar.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

Even if a design of a font is similar, it cannot be replaced by a developer or a printing business operator who produces or prints a font design, not a person who is the person who is the subject of the determination of the similarity of designs. The patent application of this case and the comparative design of this case are similar to the overall aesthetic sense of the representative author or individual author.

C. Key issue of the instant case

It is the similarity between the pending application design and the comparative design.

3. Determination

A. Criteria for judgment

The similarity of a design shall be determined not separately from each element comprising the design, but depending on whether a person who is deemed to observe and observe the appearance as a whole causes different scarcitys, and if the dominant characteristics are similar, it shall be deemed similar even if there is little difference in detail (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da23739, Sept. 30, 2010).

(b)specific review;

1) In accordance with the above judgment criteria, we examine whether the design of this case and the comparative design are similar in accordance with the representative writing (three persons, each of the three persons, each of the three persons, the alpha, the alpha, the alpha, the alpha, the alpha, the alpha, the alpha, the alpha in English)

2) First, when comparing the representative author of the application design of this case with the representative author of the comparative design, which clearly indicates the characteristics of the font (e.g., the width of writing, the form of stamp, and the flow of the e.g.) among the English text and the small text text, the two letters are similar: (i) the length of the two letters increases by a little width compared to the length of the straight line, as a solid body, compared to the length of the straight line; (ii) the text author and the small text are in the same distribution and weight as the upper line along the boundary, and are similar to the width, e.g., e., e., the length of letters.

However, in the case of the so-called “g”, the design of this case is the same as the design of this case, and the comparative design is the same as the comparison design, and there is a little difference between the original form and the lower part, and as a whole, the design of this case is the difference between the two types of letters and the lower part. However, in light of the above differences, it is deemed that the above differences are merely a modification that can be ordinarily seen by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of the font design, and in particular, in light of the fact that the above differences are made and expressed by a computer, not by a vertical work, by a computer, not by a vertical work, it is merely a commercial transformation that can easily manipulate, and thus, the difference between both characters is not likely to cause a difference of aesthetic sense.

3) Next, it is difficult to find out the differences in the text of the instant application design, which is one of the sentences of the Pangram, expressed in the English Alpha 36 as one of the 36 texts, and in comparison with both designs based on the text of the comparable design, it is deemed that it is difficult to find out the difference in the text of the text compared with the overall fonts, such as the shape, pattern, fluor, form and weight-centered, and the direction and angle of the columns, etc. of individual English characters. However, even in the visible text, even though the individual letters of the instant application design were expressed in a somewhat cut short range than those of the comparative design, such difference is merely a commercial modification that can easily be changed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of the font design, and it is determined that there is no difference in the depth of both letters.

4) On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that, unlike the determination of similarity of a design of a letter body, the determination of similarity of a design should be made narrow not by a general consumer but by a manufacturer or a printing business operator. However, the determination of similarity of a design should be made based on the person viewing the design, i.e., a person observing the design. This is not a special difference in the design of a letter body, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the patent application design of this case is similar to the comparative design of this case as a whole, so it constitutes Article 5 (1) 3 of the Design Protection Act.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of this case, which is based on the conclusion, is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)