[1] In a case where the alternative form that can be selected for the function of a product among the design composition exists in addition to the alternative form that can secure the function of the product, whether it can be evaluated as low in determining the similarity of design (negative with qualification) and whether it is similar between designs with similar characteristics, although there are somewhat differences in the detailed aspects (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that although there are some differences in the registered design " " " "," ", "," and " " "," as a design subject to confirmation, both of which are located inside and outside of the original form of a design, the shape of the string string string string string strings, the shape of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part, and the existence of a string string strings, such differences cannot have a significant impact on the overall aesthetic sense because they constitute minor differences in detailed composition that can be recognized only when the goods are detailed, or changes that can be ordinarily taken, and thus, both designs are similar designs that have no difference in the core.

[1] Articles 5(1), 6 subparag. 4, and 69 of the Design Protection Act / [2] Articles 5(1), 6 subparag. 4, and 69 of the Design Protection Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Hu29 delivered on April 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 888), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu3586 delivered on October 8, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 2332), Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu2274 Delivered on September 8, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1697)

Moluri Pharma Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Gangnam-seok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

AMM Korea Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Jong-dae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2010Heo4434 Decided October 20, 2010

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

In cases where an alternative form that can secure the function of a product among the parts related to the function of a design exists, the shape of the part shall not be deemed an essential form to secure the function of the product. Thus, barring special circumstances such as that the part falls under the publicly known shape, it cannot be readily concluded that the relevant importance should be low in determining similarity of a design. Moreover, whether the design is similar should be determined depending on whether a person who prepares and observes the appearance as a whole, rather than individually prepares for each element, and makes the person sees the appearance as a whole feel a different aesthetic sense, and if the dominant feature is similar, it should be deemed as similar even if there is a somewhat different detailed difference from the other parts (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu2274, Sept. 8, 2006, etc.).

According to the above legal principles and the records, the registered design of this case (registration number No. 296675), “,” and “Design” concerning the case for the purpose of the lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing lucing luc luc luc luc lus.

Thus, both designs are similar designs that have no difference in the aesthetic sense as a whole. Although both designs are somewhat different in terms of the shape of the interior and upper plate of the entire shape, the shape of the front folder, the existence of the front string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string st

Nevertheless, the court below concluded that, in preparing for and determining two designs, the above evaluation should be made low in its importance on the grounds that the two designs are often combined in both sides, or that the two designs were created from the functional demand of the goods. On the other hand, the court below determined that the challenged design does not fall under the scope of the right because the challenged design is not similar to the registered design of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of similarity of designs, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)