The case holding that since (a) the Speaker of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on the "Act on the P Polz Utilization" has maintained the original form and forms the back side in three-dimensional form so as to feel a sense of mind such as Yoglebb, it is distinguished from the registered design of the shape that sets the thalle-type hand flab at the center of the back of the main body of the ball shape, and there is another aesthetic value different from the registered design.

The back of the registered design relating to the "gradation of play" is without any pattern or pattern, and there is only a rectangular hand around the center of the main body of the ball shape. The chairperson of the sub-paragraph (a) of the sub-paragraph (a) simply grasps the back of the original board as the part where the hands, etc. of the grb for the field is maintained without maintaining the form of the original board, and it is reasonable to view the back of the original board as the part where the hands, etc. of the grb for the purpose of camping, etc. is simply understood as the part where the back of the original board comes into contact with the original board, and form the back of the original board in a three-dimensional manner by forming the back of the original board rather than the shape where the part of the original board makes it possible for ordinary consumers to report it, and thereby, it is reasonable to view the back of the original board as a part of the sub-design is distinguishable from the shape of the registered design.

Article 5 of the Design Act

Patent Attorney Choi-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Patent Attorney Choi Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 89Hun-Ba83 dated March 29, 1990

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Patent Trial Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below presumed that (a) the Speaker and the registered design of this case are in its original form and are attached to the main tape type A, and that there are losses in the vacant area on the part of the Speaker, and (a) the shape of the glive pattern is formed on the part of the Speaker, but it is merely a minor difference. The evidence Nos. 4 and 5 differs from the grative pattern, and the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 can be distinguished from the registered design of this case in that the shape is not the original form. Thus, the registered design of this case cannot be deemed as the simple alteration of the designs and practical uses as shown in the evidence Nos. 4,5,6, and 7 above, and (a) the Speaker and the registered design of this case are considered as a similar design when comparing the design of this case as a whole.

2. However, in light of the record, the two chairpersons of the above two chairpersons, "Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing," which are "Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing Sing-Wing," are simply forming the pattern of Ging-Wing-Wing, which is not only a difference but also a difference in the absence of any difference, and the shape of the

The back of the registered design of this case is without any pattern or pattern, and there is only a direct fluence at the center of the main body of the dunes shape. (A) The chairperson of this case has recognized the whole back of the original board as a part of contact with the hands, etc. of the glub, while maintaining the form of the original board, and simply finds the whole back of the original board as a part of contact with the hand, etc. of the glub, in a flat size, not simply simply changes the pattern, but form the back so as to make the part of the original board so as to make it possible, and form the glub in a three-dimensional form to make it possible for ordinary consumers to feel a core such as the glubb in the chapter of (a) where the latter part of the original board is "to be used for play," and as a result, it is reasonable to view that the latter part of the original board is different from the shape of the registered design of this case, which simply offers the dub, at the right end.

In addition, the shape of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 as to the design of the registered design of this case, which was published prior to the application of the registered design of this case, is in its original form, and the shape of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7 is close to the original form, and the shape of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7 is close to the design of this case, and the design of this case is knife on the ground that the chairperson of the publicly notified design of this case takes the above shape and shape, (a) and the design of this case are not similar to the registered design of this case, and the precedents cited by the court below (Supreme Court Decision 68Hu12 delivered on May 27, 1969) are not appropriate in this case.

3. If so, the original trial decision contains an error of law by erroneous determination as to (a) the design of this case and the similarity of the registered design of this case, and the arguments are justified to this extent.

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

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)