(a) Method of determining whether a design has the same or similar description of an open space or shape among the components thereof;

(b) The case holding that a similar design is deemed to be a similar design on the ground that the registered design and the cited design related to the warning area display are similar to the shape of the central balin pattern, the part of which is the essential part, and the connected part connected to the flusium, and caused a similar aesthetic sense as a whole;

A. In determining whether a design is identical or similar, it shall not be prepared by separating part of each element constituting the design separately, but shall be determined by either aesthetic sense, in comparison with the whole, and even if there is a publicly known part among the elements, it shall be determined by the food aesthetic sense, including this, unless it does not cause a special aesthetic sense, insofar as it does not cause a special aesthetic sense.

(b) The case holding that the registered design and the cited chairperson are the main points of the Speaker's height consisting of the combinations of the shape and shape of " border zone sign, etc." installed in the work site or control zone, dangerous area, security zone display, etc. which perform all kinds of construction works, and both Speakers are the main points of the Speaker's height, and both Speakers are: (a) there is a customs clearance of the balton pattern; (b) there is a combination of plugs connecting all of them with plugs and contacts by connecting them to the central customs clearance; and (c) there are many small electric exitss in the central customs clearance; and (d) there are lots of small sections that can lead human attention among these shapes are installed at a certain intervals, and it is difficult to view that there is any difference in the shape of the central core or the core shape that is similar to those of the central core, and it is difficult to view that there is any difference in the shape that there is no difference in the shape of the central core.

Articles 5(1)3 and 68(1)1 of the Design Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant Patent Attorney Lee Jong-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Korean Intellectual Property Office trial decision 93Hun-Ba22 dated July 4, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In determining the same or similar of a design, each element constituting the design shall not be prepared separately, but it shall be determined according to the aesthetic sense that a person sees by comparing, observing, and observing the whole elements, and even if there is an officially known part among the elements, it shall be determined according to the rectangular aesthetic sense, including it, unless it does not cause a special aesthetic sense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Hu663, Jun. 14, 1991).

In comparison with the registered design of this case and the quoted (3) of the cited design of this case, the two chairpersons are composed of two different construction sites, control areas, danger areas, security area display etc., and the combination of the shape and shape of the “ border area sign, etc.” installed and used in both sites, control areas, security area display, etc. The outline of the design is as follows. The two chairpersons are: (a) the customs clearance of the bridge pattern is in place; (b) the two teams are linked to all the two teams; and (c) the plug and contact with each other are formed by the connected parts connected to their central customs clearance; and (c) the central customs clearance body is installed with a small number of small electric tools, which can lead the most of humanism, and it is difficult to connect the central body with the two parallels, which is similar to the central body, and the shape and shape of the bridge, which is similar to those of the central body, which is similar to those of the two chairpersons.

The theory of the lawsuit is just because the part of the registered design of this case belongs to the well-known shape, and it cannot be deemed as the essential part of the design bill. Thus, the similarity should be determined by comparing only the remaining part except this part. However, as alleged in the theory of the lawsuit, even though the part of the design of this case and the contact falls under the widely known shape, it cannot be deemed as a part that does not cause any special decoration. Therefore, the original decision that the two chairpersons have similar as the one of the two chairpersons as a result of the overall preparation is just and just, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the similarity of the design, such as the theory of lawsuit, or incomplete deliberation. The precedents of the party members cited in the theory of the lawsuit, are different and different.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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 Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)