logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.06.09 2014후614
등록무효(디)
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the ground of appeal No. 1 in light of the relevant provisions, such as Article 43 of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 7289, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same), and the record, the lower court’s determination that: (a) determining the scope of protection of the registered design of this case (design Registration Number) using the goods subject to the instant trial decision as “B” was erroneous in specifying the form of the registered design based on a processed drawing different from the drawings attached to the application for design registration; and (b) contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending

2. As to the second ground of appeal, Article 5(2) of the former Design Act provides that a design that can be easily created by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design pertains (hereinafter “ordinary designer”) by means of a shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof widely known in the Republic of Korea shall not be eligible for design registration. The purport of the ground of appeal is that even if the shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof (hereinafter “main form”) widely known in the Republic of Korea was partially modified or diverted, it is merely a commercial functional alteration that does not recognize any other aesthetic value as a whole, or a design, such as a design, etc. whose creative level is low, such as a design that is modified or used by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design pertains, as the whole, can easily create a pattern, pattern, or color widely known in the Republic of Korea, or a combination thereof (hereinafter “main form”).

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Hu591, Apr. 10, 2001; 2013Hu2613, Mar. 10, 2016). The lower court determined that the shape of the registered design of this case, which appears at the fixed level of the registered design of this case, was non-permanently distributed on a white basis on the white basis.

arrow