A. Criteria for determining similarity of designs

(b) Novelty and creativity of the design, such as a combination of shapes, shapes, etc. belonging to the public domains;

A. The chairperson's principal element is that the form, pattern, or color, or the combination thereof, which causes an aesthetic impression in time, is the device of the material element. The formation of such an aesthetic sense, not depends on the individual element constituting the chairperson, but on the perspective of the whole combination of each element. Thus, the similarity of the chairperson should not be determined by partially observation and comparison of each element constituting the design, but if the aesthetic sense, which gives the users in relation to the whole group, is similar, the two chairpersons should be deemed similar even if there is a little difference in the detailed feature.

B. In a case where the individual shape, pattern, public notice, or public notice of a design falls within the scope of a design, if it causes a new decorations and aesthetic sense, and it is an intelligent device to the extent that it could not be easily created, the design is considered to be a new device. However, if the combination of individual shape and shape does not cause a new decorations and aesthetic sense, or if it does not have value as a technical creation, it cannot be the subject of a design registration due to lack of originality and creativity.

(a) Articles 4 and 5(1)3(b) of the Design Act; Article 5(2) of the Design Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Hu80 delivered on March 25, 1986, 85Hu111 delivered on July 8, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Hu13 delivered on September 23, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Hu95 delivered on December 23, 1986 (dong) 83Hu59 delivered on April 10, 1984

claimant 1 et al.

Macroster, skin, Twit Industrial Company

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 230 dated January 26, 1985

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the original decision, the court below: the registered design of this case owned by the claimant was designated as a wheeler for the prevention of soil and sand digging, and was registered on July 12, 1980, and the purport of the design's height is related to the shape which combines the network capture of the fluor type, and (a) the chairperson of this case is clearly combined with the network capture of the fluor type, and the shape of the fluor type. The registered design of this case is found to be visible at the time when comparing both designs, while the fluor shape of the registered design is bound to reflect the fluor type, and the fluor of this case's registered design of this case's registered design of this case's registered design of this case's fluor shape is not identical to the fluor type of the fluor type of the registered design of this case's registered design of this case's fluor, and thus, determined that the fluor of this case's registered design of this case's registered design of this case's fluor type of 197.

However, according to the records, since the shape, shape, or color, or the combination thereof, which causes aesthetic impression through view, is the essential element of the design, and the formation of such aesthetic sense is determined not by individual elements constituting the design, but by the perspective of the whole combination of elements, and therefore, the similarity of the design should not be determined by partially observing and comparing each element constituting it, but if the aesthetic degree, which gives users to the whole group, is similar in terms of the whole group, it should be deemed as similar even if there is a little difference in the detailed feature (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Hu13, Sept. 23, 1986). Since the registered design of this case is somewhat similar in terms of the fact that the registered design of this case is identical to the shape of the public design of this case, it is reasonable to determine that the registered design of this case is identical to the shape of the public design of this case, which is identical to the shape of the public design of this case, because it is a combination of the two-dimensional shape, different from the shape of the public design of this case.

However, if each form, pattern, public announcement, or public use of a design belongs to a new decoration and aesthetic sense, and if it is an intelligent device to the extent that it could not be easily created, the design is considered to be a new device. However, if the combination of individual shape and shape does not cause a new decoration and aesthetic sense, or if it does not have value as a technical creation, it cannot be a design registration due to lack of newness and creativity (see Supreme Court Decision 83Hu59 delivered on April 10, 1984), and if the design of this case is registered, the design of this case can not be recognized as a right even if it is registered. According to the records, the registered design of this case is publicly known, and the registered design of this case is simply combined with a new device without changing it or adding it to any new device. Thus, the court below's decision that the registered design of this case can not be recognized as a new idea or a new idea before it is determined as a combination with the design of this case.

Therefore, the original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)