The case holding that the basic Speaker is not similar to each other because the core door board is attached to an even door board, and the registered design is not attached with a revolving door board, the two Speakers are different in depth from each other.

The case holding that since the basic design and the basic chairperson are the essential part expressing the dominant feature of the shape and shape appearing in the situation of the revolving the regrasing, on the grounds that the regrasing board attached to the regrasing board of the basic design is generally closed in the state of ordinary use of the regrasing board, even if the regrasing board attached to the regrasing board of the basic design is general, and that the elements clearly different from the previous goods are led to the attention of the person who sees the composition that clearly differs from the regrasing board of the regrasing board, the basic design and the basic chairperson are not similar to each other, on the grounds that the shape and shape appearing in the situation of the regrasing board of the regrasing board are displayed.

Articles 7(1) and 68(1)1 of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 5354 of Aug. 22, 1997)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Cho Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and nine others (Patent Attorney Kang Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 200Heo3838 delivered on November 10, 2000

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The lower court determined as follows in preparation for the references indicated in the registered design of this case (the similar title 2 of the registered design number omitted) and the basic design thereof (the omission of the design registration number) and Gap, a publication published prior to the filing of the application of the registered design of this case, as follows.

A. The basic design of this case and the basic design of this case are even door boards such as string, furniture, and string, and it constitutes a large number of door boards by combining three rectangular forms, and it appears that two lines are divided into large rectangular forms, and three different shapes, etc., are similar (it is also known before the application of the registered design of this case as well as two different shapes of door board boards such as juncing, etc. which are combined with the design of this case, and the basic design of this case can not be seen as a public announcement of all similar shapes of the registered design of this case, since the new shape of the registered design of this case can not be determined differently from the new shape of the registered design of this case, since it can be determined that the new shape of the registered design of this case can not be seen as a public announcement of all similar shapes of the registered design of this case, and the new shape of the registered design of this case can not be determined differently from the new shape of the registered design of this case, since the new shape of the registered design of this case can be determined differently from the new shape of the registered design of this case.

B. Since the registered design of this case and the cited designs of this case are different in depth from each other for the reasons indicated in their respective reasoning, there is no evidence to deem the registered design of this case to have been publicly announced domestically or abroad.

C. Thus, the registered design of this case is similar to the basic design and is not similar to the cited design, and its registration cannot be invalidated.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below.

First of all, the basic chairperson is the main body of the device in which the shape and shape of the even board are closed in the state in which the opening board is closed and where the opening board is closed, and two lines are in the state in which the opening board is closed, and the shape and shape of the three-dimensional shapes are extremely similar to the quoted design (in particular, the quotation No. 7 3) and are already publicly announced before the application for the basic design. However, no material is found in the records that can be recognized that the shape and shape appearing in the state in which the opening board is opened, such as the judgment of the court below, are publicly known in the state in which the door board is used in the usual lawsuit, and the basic chairperson is the core of the device of the opening board, and the previous shape and shape manifest are clearly different from those of the cited design, and the Speaker deems that the shape and shape manifest in the situation in which the opening board is clearly distinguishable from those of the basic design.

Furthermore, in comparison with the basic design of this case and the basic design of this case, even door board, which is the object of both designs, is used in the lurc, furniture, and studs, and is used in the string of the front in terms of its purpose, so it should be determined whether the shape and shape in the string of the front side are similar to one another in the state where the basic design is closed, and the shape and shape in the state where the racks are open, but as long as the shape and shape appearing in the state where the racks are opened, the basic design is the essential part where the racks of the racks are displayed, and as seen above, as long as the shape and shape in the state where the racks of the racks are displayed, the two chairpersons are different from the core that all the racks of both chairpersons are seen to be similar.

3. Nevertheless, the court below judged that the two designs are similar on the grounds that the depth of the entire body is similar in judging the comparison of the design of this case with the basic design of this case as stated in its reasoning. This is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of designs, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)