The meaning of a device eligible for utility model registration

A device eligible for a utility model registration refers to the creation of a technical idea of the form, structure, or combination of goods. The degree of the creation of the technical idea does not require high level as shown in the invention under the Patent Act. Thus, in determining whether a new device has been granted, a device must mainly be limited to the external form, structure, or combination of the goods, and the creation of a new device should be limited to the extent directly related to the external form and secondary consideration. On the other hand, the device should only have the creation of a new technical idea that can be used in the industry achieved by the external form, structure, or originality of an association, and if it is merely the degree of the alteration of materials and form, and it does not result in any action or effective progress due to the alteration, it cannot be said that the utility model has been registered.

Article 3 of the Utility Model Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Hu76 Delivered on October 26, 1982

Patent Attorney Park Jong-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Patent Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 20 dated February 25, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) 원심결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 이 사건 실용신안(이하 이 사건 고안이라고 한다) 의 요지는 합성섬유, 천연섬유, 지류 등을 세절하여 이에 열경화성 합성수지를 합침시킨 것을 내측면측(2)으로 하고, 양 외측면측(3), (3')과 저면층(4) 및 내측면의 상부 약 3분의 1 정도는 벌커나이지드 화이버(Vulcanized fiber)로 적층성형하고, 본체(1)의 양첨단부에는 나사봉(6)으로 된 팁(T)을 핀(9)으로 본체(1)에서 고착시켜서 된 합성수지제 샷틀이고, 한편 갑 제18호증의 1 내지 3의 기재에 의하면 열경화성 합성수지 복합재 또는 목재로 된 샷틀몸체의 좌우, 양측면부, 저면부 및 상면을 벌커나이지드 화이버로 피복적합시킨 구조의 샷틀은 이 사건 고안의 출원전인 1960.경부터 국내에서 이미 생산되어 왔고, 갑 제20호증의 기재에 의하면 샷틀의 본체 양첨단부에 나사봉으로 된 팁을 너트로 고착시키는 구조는 역시 이 사건 고안의 출원전에 공지된 기술임을 인정할 수 있으므로 이 사건 고안은 공지공용된 인용고안에 약간의 형상, 구조상의 변경을 가한 정도에 불과하여 그로 인한 작용효과상의 진보를 가져오는 것이라 볼 수 없고, 그 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자가 극히 용이하게 고안할 수 있는 범위를 벗어나지 못하는 것이라고 판단하였다.

(2) In light of the records, the court below's finding facts as to Gap evidence 18-1 to 3 is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit.

(3) Further, a device eligible for utility model registration refers to the creation of a technical idea of the shape, structure, or combination of goods. The degree of creation of the technical idea is high as shown in the invention under the Patent Act. Thus, in determining whether a new device has been granted, the standard of determining whether a new device is new or not, mainly the external shape, structure, or combination of the goods. The creation of a new device should be limited to the extent of directly related to the external form and secondary consideration. On the other hand, the device should be limited to the appearance of the goods only, and it should be limited to a specific degree of the creation of a new technical idea that can be used in the industry achieved by the external shape, structure, or the originality of the union. However, if the invention is merely the degree of alteration of the material and form, and it does not result in any effect or progress as a result of such alteration, it cannot be said that the utility model is a device eligible for registration.

In comparison with recording and comparing the original adjudication, the court below's determination that the design of this case and the statement Nos. 18-1 through 3 and No. 20 did not differ in its form and structure. However, the form and structure of the design of this case and the statement No. 18-1 through No. 3 and No. 20 are identical as a substitute for its form and structure, and the effect of its operation is not the same as that of a person with ordinary knowledge in its technical field, and the registration of the design of this case is null and void because it violates the provisions of Article 5 (2) of the former Utility Model Act. In so doing, the court below's determination that the registration of the device of this case is null and void is justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment

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

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)