Novelty of a device identical to that of another person’s design application

Unless there are special circumstances, since the application document and invalidated application have been made to guarantee confidentiality as a law, it is difficult to conclude that other persons applied for a design of the same content as part of the registered design before the applicant applied for a registered design of the respondent, and that the part (explosion) is an open space with no newness, the registered design of the respondent is the object of the design, and the shape and shape of both horses are combined, and five out of the external appearance contains special characteristics when comparing the normal two languages. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the design is a dominant element of the design.

Articles 4, 5(1), and 49(1)2 of the Design Act;

Patent Attorney Jeong Ho-hun, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

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

Patent Court Decision 363 decided Feb. 9, 1977

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

The agent's ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 is examined.

The original decision of the court below states that the inclusion of five stories is not a dominant element of the registered design of this case since the two words, which form five stories, are publicly known prior to the application for the registration of this case, or can be easily implemented between the same business entity. The original decision of the court below, which states that the inclusion of five stories, belongs to the vacant area of the registered design of this case, refers to the documents of Articles 3 through 6 of the former Patent Act. However, according to Article 28 of the former Design Act, Article 34 of the former Patent Act, Article 101 of the former Ordinance of Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (Enforcement Rule of the Design Act), Article 11, Article 52, Article 316 of the former Ordinance of Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act), Article 316 of the former Ordinance of Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (Enforcement Rule of the Design Act), and Article 29, Paragraph 3, of the latter Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act), the application for a registered Design No.

Nevertheless, the court below's development of the theory from the standpoint of party members and opposing parties is difficult to misunderstanding the legal principles on the notification and to change the legal principles of the Speaker.

The decision of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the appellate court which is the original trial. The opinions of the participating judges are consistent with this decision.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)