Criteria for determining similarity of designs

The chairperson is the principal element of the product that causes a sense through time, and the form, pattern, or color, or the combination thereof, which is a device that is made by the combination thereof, shall not depend on the individual elements constituting the chairperson, but shall be decided by the perspective of the combination of elements, not by the individual elements constituting the chairperson, but by the perspective of the combination of elements. Therefore, if the similarity of the chairperson is not determined by the comparison among all elements, but by the aesthetic dominant characteristics that provide the users in the overall relationship, it is similar to each other, even if there is a little difference in the specific characteristics, the two chairpersons should be deemed similar.

Article 5 of the Design Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Hu111 Decided July 8, 1986, 86Hu13 Decided September 23, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Hu106 Decided July 21, 1987 (dong)

further, Attorneys Lee Byung-ho, Kim Il-young, Cho Tae-tae, and Kim Sang-gn, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in charge of the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 866 delivered on June 30, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The chairperson's principal element is that a device is made by the shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof of goods that may cause aesthetic impression through time. The formation of such aesthetic sense is not determined by individual elements constituting the chairperson, but by the perspective of the whole combination of elements, not by the individual elements constituting the chairperson. Thus, the similarity of the chairperson should not be determined by partial observation and comparison of each element, but by observing the elements constituting each element in whole and observing the whole, if the aesthetic sense, which gives users the aesthetic sense, is similar in relation to each other, the two chairpersons shall be deemed similar even if there is a somewhat different specific feature (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu13, Sept. 23, 1986).

2. In light of the record, the core design (No. 1057) and the quoted design (No. 1057) are designed in relation to the shape and shape of all other fishing, and the core design is connected to the shape and shape of the other fishing, which is a device relating to the shape and shape of the other fishing, and the shape protruding in the whole side of the other fishing village, connected to the shape and shape continuously protruding in the upper side of the other fishing village, and the shape and shape are connected to the two sides of the other fishing village with the shape protruding in the parallel of the protruding in the upper side. The quoted design can be seen that the shape and shape protruding in the upper side of the other fishing village are connected to the whole side of the other fishing village, and the two chairpersons form the shape and shape consecutively connected to the other side, and the chairperson forms the shape and shape forming the shape and shape of the other side by forming the shape and shape of the stick in the shape or shape of the stick in the upper side, and the chairperson forms the shape and shape of the other side, compared with the other shape and similar.

In the same purport, the original decision is deemed similar to the original decision and the quotation, and the original decision is just in holding that a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the chairperson belongs falls under a device that can be easily created by the quotation, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity or creativity of a design, such as the novel, nor in the incomplete hearing, or the lack of reasoning. The arguments are groundless.

3. 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 Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)