[1] The case where design registration can be filed for one application for design registration because at least two parts of one product physically separated fall under "one design" under Article 11(1) of the Design Protection Act

[2] In a case where the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner rendered a decision to refuse registration on the ground that the part of the upper part of the goods subject to the design other than the part of the case expressed in painting in the same Do as “,” and only the part protruding the lower part on the lower part of the lower part, which was applied as a partial design for protection, violated Article 11(1) of the Design Protection Act, on the ground that the above application design constitutes “one design” under Article 11(1) of the Design Protection Act in light of all the circumstances, the case holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ground that the above application design constitutes “one design” under Article 11(1

[1] Even if a design concerning at least two parts of a single product physically separated, if a person sees as being in a form or functional unity among them causes an aesthetic sense through sight as a whole, the design falls under the “one design” as provided by Article 11(1) of the Design Protection Act, and thus, can be registered with one application for design registration.

[2] In a case where the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office decided to refuse registration on the ground that the part applied for a partial design to be protected only for the part "" and the part "" protruding back on the lower side of the lower part except for the part in the case expressed in painting as goods subject to mobile phone rink, the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the design under Article 11 (1) of the Design Protection Act, on the grounds that the above part " and the design" are physically separated from the above part "," in light of all the circumstances, in a case where the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office decided to refuse registration on the ground that the part applied for a partial design to be protected was in violation of Article 11 (1) of the Design Protection Act by expressing two or more shapes, shapes, colors, colors, or combinations thereof, and thus, the above part "" and the part "" can be recognized as "to be seen as "to be", and thus, it is recognized as "to be combined in form among them, and therefore, the person seeing it causes an application through a sense as a whole.

[1] Article 11(1) of the Design Protection Act / [2] Article 11(1) of the Design Protection Act

Plaintiff (Patent & Co., Ltd., Patent Attorney Kim Yang-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2012Heo4872 Decided September 14, 2012

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A person shall be appointed.

1. Even if there are two or more designs relating to one product, which are physically far away, if those who are considered to be in a form or functional integrity among them cause an aesthetic sense as a whole by sight, the design is deemed to fall under the “one design” as provided by Article 11(1) of the Design Protection Act, and thus, one application for design registration may be filed.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the application for registration violates Article 11 (1) of the Design Protection Act providing that "an application for registration shall be filed for each design, on the ground that the part in question (forest 2) and the part in question, other than the part in the upper part (forest 2) of the subject matter and the part in the lower part (forest 3] protruding back on the lower part of the upper part of the subject matter, i.e., [Attachment 3], which is applied for partial design for protection, cannot be regarded as a single design because the part in question [forest 2] and [forest 3] cannot be deemed as being functionally or in a form because it does not have any unity between the part and [forest 3] part, and thus, the application for registration shall be filed for each design."

3. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the part of the patent application (forest 2) and the part (forest 3) of this case are not identical in form for the following reasons.

즉 이 사건 출원디자인 중 [그림 2] 부분은 이를 보는 사람이 ‘토끼 귀’ 형상으로 쉽게 인식할 것으로 보이는 점, 실제 토끼의 전체 형상에서 꼬리 부분이 차지하는 비율에 비하여 이 사건 출원디자인 중 [그림 3] 부분이 휴대폰 케이스 전체에서 차지하는 비율이 다소 크기는 하지만 실물을 디자인화하는 과정에서 어느 정도의 변형이나 과장 또는 추상화가 수반되기 마련이고, 토끼 꼬리는 뭉툭하고 둥근 털 뭉치 형상인데 이와 유사한 형상의 [그림 3] 부분은 휴대폰 케이스의 하단 뒷면에 위치하고 있는 반면 ‘토끼 귀’ 형상의 [그림 2] 부분은 휴대폰 케이스의 상부에 위치하고 있어서, 이 사건 출원디자인을 보는 사람으로서는 [그림 3] 부분을 ‘토끼 꼬리’ 형상으로 인식할 여지가 충분히 있는 점, 기록에 의하면 실제로 소비자들이 이 사건 출원디자인을 ‘토끼 형상’으로 인식하면서 [그림 3] 부분을 ‘꼬리’로 호칭하고 있음을 알 수 있는 점 등을 위 법리에 비추어 살펴보면, 이 사건 출원디자인은 [그림 2] 부분과 [그림 3] 부분이 물리적으로 떨어져 있더라도 이를 보는 사람이 [그림 2] 부분은 ‘토끼 귀’로, [그림 3] 부분은 ‘토끼 꼬리’로 각각 인식할 수 있어서 그들 사이에 형태적으로 일체성이 인정되고, 그로 인하여 이를 보는 사람으로 하여금 그 전체가 ‘토끼 형상’과 유사한 일체로서 시각을 통한 미감을 일으키게 하므로, 이 사건 출원디자인은 디자인보호법 제11조 제1항 에서 규정한 ‘1디자인’에 해당한다고 할 것이다.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of “one design” as to the determination of “one design,” which constitutes a violation of Article 11(1) of the Design Protection Act, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the part of the pending design [a picture 2] and [a picture 3] part of the design in this case is not in

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)