Whether it is similar to a design consisting of a chairperson and a division-shaped and a design consisting of a division-shaped (affirmative)

A registered design is in the shape of a part of a ancient wall, and its long part is in the shape, while the quoted chairperson is in the shape of a single part, even though the long part is in the shape as claimed by the respondent, the difference in the degree is insufficient to distinguish it from the perspective and consciousness of the consumers, to stimulate the aesthetic sense, and to stimulate the aesthetic sense, and the shape of the finger and the finger part is combined with the shapes and shapes. On the other hand, the quoted chairperson consists of only the shape, but the expression of the shape is not new in the registered design, and it is not a creative device that causes a new aesthetic sense, even if two shapes are combined in the visible shape that can be commonly seen in the ancient wall.

Article 5 of the Design Act

ThaiTTONTON

Appellants

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 208 delivered on November 20, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 and No. 2 of the respondent shall be examined together.

Since the main body of the Speaker is to call about what kind of aesthetic sense in the mind of the person who sees it, it is necessary to judge the similarity between the aesthetic sense to be ventilated in the overall context. In this case, it is reasonable to grasp the part which is the highest to attract the attention of the person who considers the Speaker as the essential part and to determine its similarity in the depth of the general consumers by observing it, and it is not necessary to call about the general consumers’ attention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82.68Hu7, supra). According to the records, the device of this case’s registered design is expressed in a shape that is one-half of the shape of the inner finger, such as the shape of the inner finger, and the shape of the inner finger, which is one-half of the shape of the inner finger, which is long, with the shape of the inner finger, and the shape of the inner part that is long.

In addition, the cited design is only the shape, while the registered design is combined with the shape and shape, the two chairpersons are not new in the design of this case, and even if the shape and shape are combined, it cannot be viewed as a creative device that causes a new aesthetic sense even if they are combined with the shape and shape.

In the end, as seen in the majority of the two, although the two have not been partially divided into a whole, it is difficult to view the two as a creative device that causes new aesthetic sense because the parts that can attract general consumers are identical or similar to the parts that can attract general consumers when observing the two in the overall relationship.

Therefore, with the same purport, the decision of the court below that maintained the original trial decision that declared the invalidation of the registered design as seen above is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the creativity of the design, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by violating the rules of evidence, and all the arguments

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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)