A. Method of determining the similarity of designs

(b) The case holding that although the chief of the application on the scale of authority differs from that of the cited intent and the apology, since the overall form and shape are similar, it cannot be registered as it constitutes Article 5 (2) of the Design Act

A. The chairperson is the principal element of the product’s shape, pattern, or color, or a combination thereof, which causes a sense of appreciation through time. The formation of such an aesthetic sense is not determined by individual elements constituting the chairperson, but by the perspective of the whole in which each element is combined, rather than by the individual elements constituting the chairperson. Thus, whether the design is similar should not be partially observed and compared and compared each element constituting it, but if the aesthetic sense, which gives the consumers in the overall relationship, is similar to each other, the two chairpersons should be deemed similar even if there is a little difference in the detailed characteristics.

(b) The case holding that, in comparison with this, since both the design of the application and the quotation are the main body of the device, there is a partial difference between the two designs, the two designs are different; however, the two designs are composed of a large source in the front of the case, and the external surface of the case form a two line at a certain intervals in the external surface of the case, and the fact that the external surface of the case forms a little part in the external surface of the case, and the head of the case form a simple part in the external surface of the three-dimensional form, it is similar to each other, and thus, the overall shape and shape are similar to the other, and the small difference is that if the person with ordinary knowledge in this field is a person with ordinary knowledge, it cannot be registered as it constitutes Article 5 (2) of the Design Act.

Article 2(1) and Article 5(2) of the Design Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Hu105 Decided July 21, 1987 (Gong1987, 1394) 86Hu101 Decided November 10, 1987 (Gong1988, 101) 89Hu1653 Decided February 23, 1990 (Gong190, 775)

Patent Attorney Jeong-hun, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 190.7.31, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

The Speaker's principal element is that the form, pattern, or color, or the combination thereof, which causes aesthetic impression through visual view, is the device made by the consumers. The formation of such aesthetic sense is not determined by individual elements constituting the Speaker, but by the perspective of the whole in which each element is combined. Thus, the similarity of designs is not determined by comparison and determination in part of each element, but by the aesthetic degree, which gives consumers in the whole relationship, are similar to each other (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Hu27, Dec. 23, 1986; 86Hu105, Jul. 21, 1987; 86Hu101, Nov. 10; 23, 1987; 86Hu105, Nov. 25, 1987; 86Hu101, Nov. 23, 1990; 203Hu1635, Feb. 23, 1995).

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that both the principal and the cited Speaker form a combination of the two pages and shapes as the main substance of the device, and compared with this, the president formed a lower side than the upper side by expressing the left side and the right side of the case in a small number, and cut off the outer side by making the appearance of U.S. on the case and the upper side, while the cited Speaker expressed the upper side and the lower side of the case in a small number of sck and protruding the front side and the lower side, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a partial difference between the two Speakers. However, the two Speaker forms a large source on the front side of the case, and forms two parts of the date type at a certain intervals on the outer side of the case, and form an enclosed part on the outer side of the case, and thus, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a difference in the overall shape of the cited design as a whole, and thus, it is not reasonable to conclude that there is a difference in the overall shape of the present design.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)