(a) The identity of the goods and the relationship between the similarity of the design which is an expression of the goods;

(b) A precedent which fails to exhaust all necessary deliberations concerning the identity of the expressed goods;

A. The Speaker under the Design Act is that the form, pattern, or color of a product or a combination thereof causes an aesthetic impression through time, and cannot exist regardless of the product and is in an indivisible relationship with the product. Thus, if the product is not identical to the product, it shall be deemed that there is no design or similarity, which is an expression of the product. The identity of the product shall be determined depending on whether it can be recognized as the product of the same kind in light of the use, function, etc. of the product.

B. If the chief of the application is used for a furniture such as a bed or a customer, etc., whether the quoted chief is used for a furniture, and its purpose, function, material quality, etc. should be examined and determined as to whether the goods expressed by the chief of the application chief and the quoted chief of the goods are related to the same kind of goods under the transaction norms. If the quotation chief of the application chief and the quoted chief of the application are not used for a household at least, it cannot be deemed as goods of the same kind under the transaction norms.

Articles 9 and 5 of the Design Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Hu110 Delivered on May 14, 1985

Patent Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for defendant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 388 of April 30, 1986

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

The Speaker under the Design Act means that the shape, pattern, or color of a product or a combination thereof causes an aesthetic impression through a visual point, and it is not possible to leave the product, and since it is in an indivisible relationship with the product, if the product is not identical, the Speaker, which is an expression of the product, shall be deemed to have no similarity. The identity of the product shall be determined depending on whether it can be recognized as the same kind of product in light of the use, function, etc. of the product (see Supreme Court Decision 84Hu10 delivered on May 14, 1985).

According to the records, the design of the application of this case is intended to prevent the unfolding of the connected parts connected to the "T", which are used in the t from connecting the crossing pipe and paper pipe in a vertical line, and is used in the furnitures such as a turr, etc., the design of the application of this case can be found to be for the purpose of stabilizing the turfing of the turf and paper pipe with the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the pipe, and the turging body with the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the pipe, with the upper part of the upper part of the pipe.

Therefore, since the design of the application in this case is used for the furnitures such as beds or tablers, the court below should deliberate and decide whether the quotations are used for the furnitures (the applicant asserts that the quotations are used for the autotypes), and whether the head of the application of this case and the quotations are related to the goods of the same kind under the transaction norms in light of the purpose, function, materials, etc., and if the quotations are not at least related to the furnitures, the goods to be expressed by the design of the application of this case and the quotations cannot be viewed as the goods of the same kind under the transaction norms.

The court below's determination that the head of this case and the quotation of the application of this case were related to similar goods without neglecting the deliberation as above is that the Speaker committed an unlawful act by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the identity of goods expressed, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)