[권리범위확인][공1990.11.1.(883),2093]
Criteria for determining the similarity of a device
In determining whether a device is identical with or similar to the right of a utility model on which the device is registered, not only the technical device for the shape, structure, or combination of each product, but also the utility model such as the value of the device's use and its purpose of use should be compared and examined.
Article 4 of the Utility Model Act
Attorney Park Jong-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant
Attorney Song-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 88DaDa327 dated September 30, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In determining whether a device is identical with or similar to a registered utility model right, the court below should compare not only the technical device for the shape, structure, or combination of each product, but also the use value of the device and the effects of the use of the device, such as the purpose of its use, in addition to the technical device for the shape, structure, or combination, etc. of each product. In this respect, the court below judged that the design of this case and the sub-design of this case can not escape from the scope of the right to the device of this case as a whole, because the technical device of this case and the effects of the device are identical or similar to those of the non-design of this case as stated in its holding. In light of the records, the
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)