The case holding that the registered design and the comparative design with respect to the "salvine operation operator" are different in depth from each other, and thus, they are not similar to each other.

The case holding that the registered design and the comparative design with respect to the "salvine operation operator" are not similar to each other, because they have been salved as a whole.

Article 5 (1) 3 of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 7289 of Dec. 31, 2004)

Co., Ltd.

New Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 25, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 27, 2005 on the case No. 1543 on July 27, 2005 is revoked.

1. Details of the trial decision;

A. The Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial to invalidate the registration of the instant registered design under B (1) below, on the ground that it falls under Article 5(1)3 of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 7289, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the registered design under the Defendant’s B (1) was published in a publication published in the Republic of Korea prior to the filing of the application or worked in the publication published in the Republic of Korea. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the registered design of this case does not fall under Article 5(1)3 of the former Design Act, on the ground that the registered design of this case does not fall under the scope of Article 5(2) of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 7289, Dec. 31, 2004).

B. The registered design of this case and comparative design

(1) The registered design of this case

(a) Registration number: The defendant; the right-holder of the design right under No. 342791 (b);

(C) Date of application/registration: April 30, 2003// January 5, 2004

(D) The summary of a design device: The product that is the object of the design is a combination of the shape and shape of “salvine operation machine for the short time” as indicated in the attached Form 1, as “salvine operation machine for the short time.”

(e) Description of the design: a material is a device operated with a piece of metal materials with a manual operated at the time of the operation of a short circuit.

(2) A comparative design

Before filing an application for the registered design of this case, the registered design of this case was published and distributed in the clock of the Plaintiff’s publication, and the shape and shape of the clock of the clock of the clock of the clock of the clock of the

【Evidence: Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the trial decision

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The design subject to comparison is similar to the registered design in this case, and when it is necessary to operate the original plate of the ice shape and the knife to the manual of the knife, it is used in a combination protruding part, and it is again stored separately from the body of the body, and thus, the depth of the knife differs depending on the existence of the original plate of the knife shape and the knife pattern. Thus, the registered design in this case is similar to the registered design in this case.

(b) Markets:

The similarity of a design should be determined on the basis of whether a person can feel different scarcitys or not, rather than separately comparing each element comprising the design separately (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu1218, Dec. 26, 2003). As alleged by the Plaintiff, the similarity of a design should be determined on the basis of whether a person who can view the appearance as a whole by comparing and observing the appearance as a whole, feel different scarcitys or not (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu1218, Dec. 26, 2003). If it is necessary to operate a drogate pattern and scarcitys as a part of a single-use operation machine, which is the object of both designs, as alleged by the Plaintiff, in the event that it is used as a combined protruding, and again stored separately from the body of the body of the body, unless the above element appears in the comparative design, the two designs should not be compared only with the remaining parts, except for those parts.

In comparison with the registered design of this case and the comparative design, there are some similar parts in that there are protruding parts below the body side of the body side of each square shape, and showers form on the opposite side of the registered design of this case. However, the protruding part of the registered design of this case leads to the original plate of ice shape and loss, and the proportion of the above elements to the registered design of this case is not significant, so the comparative design that does not have the above elements is different from the registered design of this case.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the registered design of this case does not have any ground for invalidation of registration falling under Article 5 (1) 3 of the former Design Act, the trial decision of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-ho (Presiding Judge)