[권리범위확인][공1991.10.1.(905),2361]
The case holding that (a) the registered design concerning the speed reduction, and the shape, shape, etc. of the original type rinking, besing, and the shape of which are required by the Speaker are the same as that of the similar design
The case holding that even if the shape of the flow outlet differs from the original form or in its original form, and the location of the part where the chesting part of the pleling part is somewhat different from that of the registered design concerning the speed reduction, it is merely a modification that can be commonly taken as a somewhat small difference in the detailed composition rather than the original part of both chairpersons, and thus, both chairpersons are similar chairpersons.
Article 5 (1) 3 of the Design Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1653 (Gong1990, 775) (Gong1990, 1262), 89Hu2014, May 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1262), 90Hu1024, Jun. 11, 1991 (Gong191, 1926)
Patent Attorney Shin-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Attorney Lee In-bok et al., Counsel for the respondent
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 88 No. 325 dated June 22, 1990
The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
원심결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 감속기에 표현된 의장의 지배적인 요소는 시각의 중심이 되는 "정면" 및 "좌측면"이라 할 것인데 피심판청구인의 (등록의장번호1 생략)(이하 등록의장이라고 한다)와 심판청구인의 (가)호의장에 있어서 좌측면에 나타나 있는 원통형 케이싱, 8자형 베어링 켑, 장타원으로 돌출되어 있는 베어링 흉출부의 모양은 서로 유사하나 원통형 케이싱과 8자형 베어링 캡은 갑 제4호증의 공지의장(이하 인용의장이라 한다)의 것과 유사하고 장타원의 베어링 흉출부는 동업계에서 통상의 기술을 가진 자이면 누구라도 인용의장의 오뚜기형상에서 용이하게 변형할 수 있는 형상에 불과하여 등록의장은 이 점에 관한 권리를 주장할 수 없으며 그를 제외한 부분적인 면에서는 양의장은 베어링 흉출부 측변의 유량게이지가 등록의장은 장타원형이나 인용의장은 정원형의 형상을 하고 있는 점, 베어링 흉출부에 있어서도 등록의장은 좌하부가 안쪽으로 삭설되어 있으나 (가)호의장은 그러한 삭설된 부위가 없는 점이 서로 차이가 있으므로 등록의장과 인용의장은 서로 상이한 의장이라고 판단하였다.
However, it is reasonable to determine similarity between the two sides of the design at the bottom of the shape of the registered design that can be seen as the shape of the front, and the shape of the registered design that can be seen as the shape of the front at the bottom of the front (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Hu101, Feb. 24, 1987; 88Hu35, Mar. 28, 1989; 89Hu2014, May 8, 190; 89Hu2014, Feb. 28, 198) because the two parts of the registered design that can be seen as the shape of the front line are somewhat identical to the front line of the front line, and the shape of the registered design that could be seen as the shape of the front line are different from the front line of the front line, and the upper part that could be seen as the shape of the registered design at the bottom of the front line.
Therefore, although the design is similar to the registered design, the court below's decision that the design under subparagraph (a) is regarded as a design different from the registered design is not proper, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the design right, thereby affecting the result of the decision. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out is justified.
Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)