A. Criteria for determining the similarity of a design (i.e., the aesthetic sense and the impression) and the direction of comparison when there is a difference in the aesthetic sense in accordance with the direction to view

(b) The case holding that if the registered design and the cited design are returned to the right and at 135 degrees, it can be recognized that the corresponding arrangement is identical respectively, the similar design is the design;

A. In determining the similarity of a design, each element of the design should not be partly seen, but the similarity between the impression and the impression to be ventilated in the mind of a person who is deemed to be in the overall relationship with the whole. Therefore, if the dominant characteristics are similar to each other, even if there is a little difference in the detailed characteristics, the two chairpersons should be deemed similar, and if the shots shot in accordance with the direction to view are the same and different, the similarity should be made in preparation for them.

(b) The case holding that [Registration Design] and [Attachment Design] are similar designs on the ground that if a registered design is returned to the right and at 135 degrees, it can be recognized that the corresponding arrangement is identical respectively;

Article 5 (1) 1 of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 4208 of Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1441 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 113), Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1595 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong192, 1435) (Gong1435)

Patent Attorney Lee Jae-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Appellants

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na102 Dated February 27, 1992

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

First, we examine the third ground for appeal.

In determining the similarity of a design, each element of the design shall not be deemed to be part, but shall be the similarity of the sense and impression to be ventilated in the mind of a person who is deemed to be in the overall relationship with the entire, so if the dominant characteristics are similar, even if there are some differences in the detailed characteristics, they should be considered to be similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Hu101, Nov. 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1628, Mar. 22, 191; 91Hu28, Nov. 8, 1991; 91Hu288, Nov. 1, 1991; etc.).

According to the records, the Speaker of this case may recognize that the elements of the design of this case consist of partial modifications compared to those of the quoted chairperson, and it is difficult to see that the above modifications are in excess of the width of reproduction or similar. However, in the arrangement, the Speaker of this case returns the design of this case to 135 degrees right, and then the Speaker of this case sets up the design of this case to 2 column B, while the Speaker of this case sets up the design of this case to 1 column B, and 135 degrees from the right side in comparison with the design of this case, it can be recognized that the arrangement corresponding to 135 degrees from the quoted design of this case is identical (the original decision is the same as the arrangement with the quoted design of this case in comparison with the design of this case). Ultimately, the Speaker of this case is not able to see that there is a difference in the elements of the quoted design of this case as a whole in comparison with the quoted design of this case, but the Speaker of this case can not be deemed to have a difference in the original design of this case as a similar nature.

Nevertheless, the decision of the court below that the Speaker of this case is not similar to the quotation, but does not easily create from the quotation does not mean that the court below affected the result of the trial decision by misunderstanding the legal principles on the similarity and creativity of the Speaker and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without any further determination on the remaining grounds of appeal, the original decision shall be reversed and remanded to the Appellate Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.