(b) The case holding that a single type of illumination, etc., which is an article to express a registered design, shall constitute goods of the same kind as electric tools and electric tools and electric tools and diskettes; and

(c) The case holding that the similarity of designs may be judged with respect to electric percussion lockss for electronic sirens, etc. which are finished, and electric percussion locks and diskettes which are related to their parts;

(d) The case holding that the registered design on the integrated type lighting, etc. for electronic sirens lack new and creativeness;

(b) The case holding that, in light of its use and function, an electronic siren type light (or an integrated type), which is an article to express a registered design in the shape of a two parts, is the same kind of product as an electric siren and electric ballet (or an integrated type), if the electric siren type light (or an integrated type), which is an article to express a registered design in the shape of a two parts, re-exploited in one part of the supporting body and the lower part of the supporting body in the shape of a single unit connected thereto, and the shape under the latter part, constitutes an article of the same kind with electric

(c) Even in relation to parts and completed goods, if the composition of the parts is close to the completed goods, the similarity of the design may be determined by deeming both goods as similar goods, and electric balls and electric balls constituting an integrated lighting for electronic sirens shall fall under the case where they are close to the completed goods, respectively.

(d) The case holding that the registered design “B” as referred to in the above goods which are subject to an electronic siren-type illumination, etc., is in lack of originality, because the registered design is not new compared to the publicly known, public design, or a person with ordinary knowledge in the household electric product industry such as an electronic siren-type illumination, etc., can be easily created by the public design, and thus, the creativity is insufficient.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

The Speaker under the Design Act means that the shape, pattern, or color of a product, or a combination thereof causes an aesthetic impression through time, and cannot be found to leave the product, and in an indivisible relationship with the product, if the product is not identical to the product, the Speaker, which is an expression of the product, shall also be deemed to have no similarity. The issue of identity shall be determined depending on whether the product can be recognized as the same kind of product in light of the use, function, etc. of the product (see Supreme Court Decision 84Hu10, May 14, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 86Hu84, Mar. 24, 1987).

According to the records, the chairperson of this case is about the string body of the front body and the upper body body of the front body of the front body connected to the front body of the front body and the lower body body body of the front body body, and the shape of the front body of both under his command, the strings in the shape, and the strings in the shape, and according to the classification of the articles prescribed in Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Design Act, the front and front string pockets belong to the 34th unit and the strings of the front body and the front strings of the front string and the front strings of the front string and the front strings of the front strings of the front strings of the front strings of the front strings of the front strings of the front strings of the front strings of the front strings of the front strings of the front strings of the front strings of the front strings of the front 2.

In addition, if the composition of the parts is close to the finished product, the similarity of the design can be determined by considering both the parts as similar goods, and electric gates and electric percussion locks which form an electronic siren type lighting, etc. shall be the case where the finished product itself is close to the finished product, and the judgment of the court below shall be justified and acceptable as it appears in accordance with this purport, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the identity of the goods to be expressed by the Speaker. The argument is without merit.

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

The judgment of the court below is justified in the determination of the court below on the following grounds: (a) although examining the utility model application and design registration for the E-U-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S.

In addition, the author argues that the design of the Marina Electric is not accurately known only with the drawings shown, but the shape and shape of the design can be known by the Utility Model Gazette of Japan 263, 264, and the comparison and observation of the publicly known design does not necessarily require both the latitude, aspect, elevation, and gambling. There is no reason to discuss.

(3) On the third ground for appeal:

The fact-finding court's rejection of evidence in its fact-finding does not require daily review or explanation of the reasons for the rejection of evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below's rejection of evidence cited by the theory of lawsuit in its fact-finding did not explain the reasons for the rejection of evidence in its fact-finding, which led to the violation of law in its incomplete hearing. The arguments are without merit.

(4) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)