The case holding that the design of subparagraph (a) concerning the height control device of a bridge for furniture does not fall under the scope of right in the registered complaint because it is different in the composition of a new design for registration and a closure of control system

The case holding that (A) where the device on the height control system of a bridge for households is the same as in the technical composition of which the body of the bridge is fixed and attached at the lower surface of the household, but it does not fall within the scope of the right in the registered bridge due to the difference in the technical composition of the control closure.

Article 4 of the Utility Model Act

claimant

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and two others, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Hun-Ba8 dated April 29, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the attorney of the respondent are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that all of the devices described in (a) and (a) of the instant registered device and (a) and the specifications described in the explanatory note (hereinafter referred to as a "design") are different from the registration device and its constituent means, and that the structure of the bridge body, among technical ideas of both devices, is an open object published under Article 82-259 of the Publication Number of the Utility Model Gazette and No. 84-872 of the Publication Number 82-259 of the Utility Model Gazette and the announcement number No. 84-872 of the announcement number, and (a) the device is attached to the lower part of the bridge, which is a simple structure compared to the registration device, and thus, it is not within the scope of the right in the instant registration plan.

In light of the records, in the technical composition of which the body of a bridge and the body of a bridge are fixed and attached at the lower end of a household, the technical composition of a bridge body is identical since the body of a bridge body is to be fixed and attached by taking the body of a bridge from the inside floor of a household into the support center (registration device) which performs the same function as all the two devices in the construction of the technology structure of which the body of a bridge is fixed and attached at the lower end of a household, and the body of a bridge body is installed and attached from the inside floor of a household. Therefore, the decision of the court below on this point is erroneous. However, the technical composition of a system to cut down in the (Ga) device is different from the registered device of this case as stated in the decision of the court below and has the same effect as its decision. Thus, the decision of the court below that the (Ga) bill does not fall under the scope of the right of the registered body of this case is just, and it does not affect the conclusion of the decision.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)