[1] Criteria for recognizing the creativity of a design

[2] A case where the creativity is not recognized as being a simple model of another design

[3] Whether the material or quantity of the goods can be a separate design (negative)

[1] The objective creativity required by the Design Act is not a unique feature that is not similar to all the past or present devices, and thus, a design registration under the Design Act may be granted if an aesthetic device that combines a new aesthetic device that is based on the past and present devices, to the extent that the former design is recognized as having a aesthetic value different from the previous design, even if a part of the invention is recognized, if an aesthetic value different from the past and present devices is not recognized as a whole, it is merely a commercial and functional alteration of the publicly known device, and thus, it cannot be recognized as creative.

[2] The case holding that since all the names of the goods to be expressed are "unexplosion", and both of the Speakers are the fruit of the figures that look at only one side of the goods, unlike ordinary in the shape where they are sitting, and the dominant characteristics are similar, the Speaker of the original Speaker does not have any aesthetic value different from the quotation, and the Speaker of the original Speaker does not place the annual flame pattern on the back of the head of the ministry, and there is a little difference between the head of the ministry and the head of the quotation in the form of the ministry or the head of the ministry, although the Speaker simply models the quotation, it is merely the commercial and functional transformation of the quotation, and this cannot be recognized as creative nature of the original Speakers because a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the Speaker belongs can easily cite it from the head of the Ministry (referring to photographs).

[3] The material quality and the quantitative nature of the goods shall not be the subject of a separate design.

[1] Article 5 (2) of the Design Act / [2] Article 5 (2) of the Design Act / [3] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Design Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2133 delivered on October 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 2719), Supreme Court Decision 91Hu288 delivered on November 8, 1991 (Gong1992, 113), Supreme Court Decision 91Hu14 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 1724), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu961 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1963), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1315 delivered on June 24, 199 (Gong194Ha, 2106), Supreme Court Decision 9Hu29498 delivered on November 21, 195 (Gong1994, 2106), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu29689 delivered on June 16, 1996)

The Korea High Court Decision 201Na11446 decided May 1, 201

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 94Na1441 dated November 29, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

The objective creativity required by the Design Act is not a unique feature that is not similar to all the past or present devices, but is not a unique feature that is not similar to a high level of originality, i.e., a device that combines an aesthetic device that serves a new aesthetic sense based on the past and present devices, and can be registered under the Design Act if the original design is deemed to have a aesthetic value different from the previous design in its entirety. However, even though a partial recognition of creativity is recognized, if an aesthetic value different from the past and present devices is not recognized as a whole, it is merely a commercial and functional alteration of a publicly notified device, and thus, creativeity cannot be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1315, Jun. 24, 1994).

According to the records, the design of the application of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "design") and the quoted design (limited to the shape and shape of the fruit which the applicant disclosed by being inside the entire main body of the applicant before the filing date of the main body of this Chapter; hereinafter referred to as the "citing design") are prepared. The two chairpersons are "unexploi" all the names of the goods to express the design, and the two chairpersons are identical goods of the same kind. Unlike the ordinary influences where the applicant is sitting, the two chairpersons are different from the ordinary influences, and their dominant characteristics are similar to the other side, so the original chairperson does not have any aesthetic value different from the cited design as a whole. This Speaker does not place the subsequent parts of the head of the ministry, but takes advantage of the body body of the source of a tobacco fluence, and the shape and shape of such bed, which facilitates the creative body of the plaintiff, and the Speaker can not recognize the commercialization of the original shape as being functionally different from the cited design in the field of the original design.

In the above purport, the decision of the court below that rejected the registration of the principal shall be justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the lack of reason, lack of reason, and creativity of the design.

The material quality or the quantitative nature of the goods cannot be a separate design (see Supreme Court Decision 81Hu26, May 11, 1982). Since the original design is simply a simple model of the quotation, the original design cannot be recognized as creative in the original design, even if it differs from size or material. The grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)

A person shall be appointed.