The case holding that the registered design is publicly announced prior to the filing of the application on the grounds that it cannot be seen that the aesthetic sense selly selbly differs from the design for grass, and that the registered design has been produced and used in various forms before the application for the registered design is filed.

풀리에 관한 등록의장과 인용의장에 있어서 벧트를 장착하는 표면의 홈 및풀리 중앙부분에 형성된 원형의 구멍의 각 개수가 다르고 등록의장에 풀리 중앙부분에 점박이 무늬가 배시되어 있다는 것만으로는 전체적으로 관찰하여 볼 때 양자로부터 느껴지는 심미감이 다르다고 할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라, 등록의장의 출원 전에 등록의장과 같이 풀리 중앙부분에 4개의 원형구멍이 있고 홈의 숫자도 3개부터 9개까지 있는 다양한 형태의 풀리가 제작, 사용되어 왔으므로 등록의장은 출원 전에 공지된 것이라고 본 사례.

Articles 5(1) and 35(1)1 of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 4208 of Jan. 13, 1990)

claimant 1 et al. and three other patent attorneys

Appellants

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 464 dated June 29, 1991

The case shall be reversed and remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for Appeal.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below rejected the assertion that the registered design of this case is somewhat similar to that of both Speakers in that the shape of the design is formed in the form of 4 homes where the Belgium is installed, but the cited Speakers 5 or 7 of the cited Speakers, and the 4 or cites or 6 of the registered design is formed in the form of 5 or 7 of the original form formed in the grass-in smoke, and the flat panel of the grass-in smoke shows the pattern of fluence. However, although there is no pattern of fluence, both Speakers form a grass-out smoke in the original form and form a hole in the original form in the delivery of the design, and the shape of the design is not considerably modified when considering that the shape of the design is considered to be a product, the two Speakers are not a design that can be considerably changed in the shape of the design when considering that it is not a design that can make the shape of the design to be the product.

However, the determination of similarity of a design shall not be partially seen as part of each element, but if the dominant characteristics are similar to the overall characteristics, even if there is a little difference in the detailed characteristics, the two chairpersons shall be deemed as similar. If the shape, pattern, and the quotation of the registered design is in the same shape and pattern as the quotation [gam2] of the quotation [gam 1], although both sides are in the same shape and pattern, the door of the surface on which the Belgium is installed in both Speakers has 5 of the registered design, 4 of the cited design, 6 of the quoted, and 4 of the original form formed in the grass central part, and 4 of the registered design, 6 of the cited design, and the registered design has been in the shape of the original form formed in the grass central part, and the overall examination of the registered design has already been made in the shape of the registered design before being observed as a whole, and 9 of the registered design has already been made in the form of a three-dimensional shape, as seen in the record (see subparagraphs A and 5).

Nevertheless, the decision of the court below in the contrary purport is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 5 (1) of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 4208 of Jan. 13, 1990). Therefore, the argument pointing this out is with merit.

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 Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)