[1] The standards for determining whether a product is identical or similar to that of a design, which serves as the premise for determining whether a design is identical or similar to a design

[2] The case holding that "respondingly life", which is an object of a registered design, falls under the same or similar article as "drawed sweed sweed sweeds and sweed sweeds", which is an object of a registered design

[1] If the design intends to be identical or similar, the product expressed by the design should be identical or similar, and the issue of whether it is identical or similar to the product shall be determined according to whether it can be recognized as identical or similar product in light of the purpose and function of the product, and the classification of the product under Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Design Act is for the convenience of the design registration business, and the product of the same kind is not stipulated in the law. Thus, the product of the same kind can not be seen as the same kind even if it falls under the product of the same kind, and even the product of different kind is recognized as the same kind. Even if it differs from the purpose and function, the shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof shall be considered as similar goods.

[2] The case holding that a container which installs a 'convenition prevention tool beyond a registered design' is used as a 'convenient life', and that a container which installs a 'convenient passage' published in the Japanese official bulletin is similar to a '(convenition prevention tool beyond a large scale) '(convenience)' in its shape and shape '(convenience) '(convenition circulation)' '(convenition of a large scale)' 'convenition of a container which is the object of the registered design' 'convenition of a container which is the object of the registered design 'convenition prevention tool beyond a large range of temperature than the outer part of the container, 'convenitionor', which is used in a container with a higher temperature than the upper part of the above product, 'convenition of the container', which can be used in the same way as the above article 'convenition of the container or the above article 'convenition of the container.

[1] Article 5 (1) of the Design Act, Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Design Act / [2] Article 5 (1) of the Design Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Hu110 delivered on May 14, 1985 (Gong1985, 845), Supreme Court Decision 86Hu84 delivered on March 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 729), Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1994 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2160), Supreme Court Decision 91Do612 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong192, 362), Supreme Court Decision 91Hu114 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong192, 1724), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu492 delivered on December 28, 199 (Gong1981, 209, 3608).

Since the corporation

Defendant (Patent Attorney Kim Jung-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2002Heo3085 delivered on October 11, 2002

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

1. First, we examine the second ground for appeal.

A. The court below determined that the Defendant’s goods subject to the registered design of this case (registration number omitted) are a laundry aids for preventing heat losses and effectively washing and washing the laundry by preventing the laundry from getting out of the container as soon as possible or dividing the container, and preventing the laundry from spreading outside the container, which are the goods subject to the Defendant’s registered design of this case (registration number omitted). However, the court below determined to the effect that the lapped goods of both designs cannot be regarded as identical and similar goods in light of trade norms, since the lapped goods of this case are not only different function and usage, but also can not be mixed with each other.

B. If the Speaker intends to be the same or similar product, he/she shall first use the product expressed by the Speaker as the same or similar product. Determination of the same or similar product shall be made according to whether it can be recognized as identical or similar product in light of the use, function, etc. of the product, and the classification of the product under Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Design Act is for the convenience of the design registration business, and the product of the same kind is not stipulated in the law, and therefore, it can be seen as the same kind of product even if it falls under the product of the same kind, and even if it differs from the purpose of use and function, it shall be deemed as similar goods if the shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof is similar and used as a mixture (see Supreme Court Decision 200Hu3388, Jun. 29, 2001).

C. In light of the above legal principles and records, as to whether the circulation circulation circulation of the above Japan’s official bulletin, which is the object of the registered design of this case, is the same or similar goods, the container installed for the purpose of life as soon as possible is used, and the container installed for the purpose of "convenition circulation" inserted in the above Japan’s official bulletin is different from that of "booming." However, the container installed for the purpose of "contition circulation" is different from that of "(contition erosion prevention tool beyond the above boom)" in the shape and shape of each section and "(contition circulation)". In the function of the container installed for all the above two goods, it is similar to the above two goods, which can be seen that the container or container used for the same quality can be used directly at the bottom of the above goods, and that the container or container used for the same quality above the above goods can be seen as using the container or container rapidly above the above article’s inner temperature, and thus, the container or container was used for more than the above mentioned water temperature.

D. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the identity of the goods subject to design, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal No. 2 pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)