(a) The extent of the entry in “a design entered in a publication” under Article 5(1)2 of the former Design Act;

B. Criteria for determining the similarity of designs

A. The degree of entry into the “designs listed in the publications” under Article 5(1)2 of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 4208 of Jan. 13, 1990) is sufficient when a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the proposal for the design pertains expresses it to the extent that he/she can easily make a proposal for the design, and it does not necessarily require that all of the shapes and shapes should be written by 6 degrees, reference attempts, etc.

B. Whether the design is similar or not is partly deemed to be part of each element constituting the design, and if its dominant characteristics are similar to each other in the aesthetic sense that the overall appearance of the design provides users by comparing and observing the appearance as a whole, the two chairpersons should be deemed similar even if there are somewhat differences in the detailed characteristics.

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

B. Supreme Court Decision 91Hu288 delivered on November 8, 1991 (Gong1992, 113) 92Hu490 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 115) 93Hu1315 delivered on June 24, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2106)

claimant

Attorney Park Jong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 194 May 31, 1994

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The degree of "a design entered in a publication" under Article 5 (1) 2 of the former Design Act shall not be stated in all the shape and shape, such as six pages, reference roads, etc., if it is expressed to the extent that a person who has ordinary knowledge in the field to which the proposal for the design belongs can easily report it.

According to the records, the drawing of the quoted design is expressing in detail the overall structure and the cross-sections of the person who is the design of this case, and the whole form can easily be known only by which the decision of the court below is made as the object of comparison and observation, and it is just to determine the similarity of designs. There is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, such as theory. There is no reason to discuss.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Whether the design is similar or not shall not be partly viewed as part of each element that constitutes it, but if the dominant characteristics are similar to each other in the aesthetic sense that the overall appearance provides users by comparing and observing the appearance as a whole, the two chairpersons should be deemed similar even if there is a little difference in the detailed characteristics.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below determined that the registered design of this case is similar to the design publicly notified before the application, and thus, is null and void in accordance with Article 35 (1) 1 of the former Design Act, since the registered design of this case is similar to the design publicly notified before the application, and the drawings published in Japan on January 22, 1983, in preparation for the drawings listed in the Utility Model Gazette published in Japan (Registration No. 79346) and the Utility Model Gazette published in January 22, 1983.

In light of the records, we affirm the above fact-finding and decision of the court below as just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the similarity of the design or incomplete deliberation as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)