[실용신안등록무효][공1990.4.1.(869),652]
A utility model registration for a device that has changed the material and form to the publicly known device, but does not have an inventive step in the action effect (negative)
A device eligible for a utility model registration shall exist to a certain extent of the creation of new technical ideas by external shape, structure, or the similarity of an association. However, a device eligible for a utility model registration cannot be deemed a device eligible for a utility model registration if it is limited to the extent of a change in materials and form and it does not result in any action effect due to such change.
Articles 2 and 5 of the Utility Model Act
Supreme Court Decision 81Hu72 delivered on February 14, 1984, 87Hu103 Delivered on January 12, 1988
Samsung Electric Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Attorney Kang Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 136 Dated May 19, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
A device eligible for a utility model registration shall have to have a certain degree of creation of new technical ideas by external shape, structure, or the similarity of an association. A device for public use shall not be deemed a device eligible for a utility model registration if it is limited to the extent of a change in materials and form and it does not bring about any action effect due to such change (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Hu72, Feb. 14, 1984; 87Hu103, Jan. 12, 1988; 87Hu103, Jan. 12, 198). Furthermore, Article 5(2) and (1) of the Utility Model Act provides that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the device belongs has already been known or worked domestically or publicly, or a device easily designed by a device described in a publication distributed domestically and overseas, if it is extremely easy to have such device, the utility model registration shall not be granted even if it is recognized.
According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the utility model registration for the device of this case was invalidated on the ground that the decision of the court below is just in light of the records, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles, the rules of evidence, the incomplete trial, the omission of judgment, the omission of reasoning, and the omission of reasoning, etc., as otherwise alleged in the reasoning, even though the technical composition or action effect of both parties are identical or identical to one another, and the two are not limited to both. However, it is not recognized that the utility model registration for the device of this case can be easily designed from the contents of the quotation, a publication published in Korea and abroad, which were distributed before the filing of the application, although the utility model registration for the device of this case was judged to be invalidated, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles or the rules of evidence, the incomplete trial, the omission of judgment, the omission of reasoning, etc.
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.
Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)