A. Criteria for determining similarity of designs

B. Whether the main design and the quoted design are similar

A. Determination of the similarity of a design is not partially seen as part of each element constituting it, but if the dominant characteristics are similar to each other in the overall relationship, even if there are somewhat differences in the detailed features, the two chairpersons are deemed similar.

B. Although there is a minor difference in part between the principal forum and the quotation, if the two are prepared objectively and objectively, the implications of the principal forum are the same as the implications of the present chapter A. However, it is recognized that the general consumers have the same shape and shape as the implications of the quotation design [Ge2], and that the general consumers have the same sense of aesthetic sense as the other similar design.

Article 5 of the Design Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Hu29 Decided April 24, 1984 delivered on December 11, 1984

Attorney Han-yang Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Patent Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office No. 47 dated April 29, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal by the respondent's agent are examined.

The decision of similarity of the Speaker does not partially see each element that constitutes it, but if the dominant characteristics are similar to the whole, if the dominant characteristics are different from the overall characteristics, the two Speakers should be deemed similar even if there are differences in the detailed characteristics. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the Speaker of thiswon's original Speaker's shape of convenience of support and shape on the press base, which is short of a shape, and the cited design is different from that of the cited design, and that there is a little difference in the cited design's support letter, the Speaker of the original Speaker has the same shape and shape as that of the original Speaker's implications if the two are partly and objectively compared, while the cited intention of the Speaker is in the same shape as that of the original Speaker's current design, it is recognized that ordinary consumers acquire a similar Speaker's aesthetic sense, and before the application, the original Speaker can easily be registered by Article 5 (1) 1 of the former Design Act because it constitutes a ground for invalidation of Article 5 (2) of the former Design Act.

In preparation for the shape and shape of the main source and the quotation by the record, we agree with the above recognition and judgment of the original court's decision, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the similarity of designs, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the precedents of the theory of lawsuit are not appropriate in this case, unlike the case.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)