[1] The meaning of "the relationship where the post-design uses the pre-registered design"

[2] The case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that the challenged design cannot be seen as being introduced into one's design without impairing the essential characteristics of the registered design, which is a "stoves", and thus, it cannot be seen as having a relation to using the registered design

[1] The subsequent design falls within the scope of the right to the prior registered design, and the subsequent design falls within the scope of the right to the prior registered design, and the subsequent design is not similar to the prior registered design of another person as a whole, although the subsequent design is not similar to the prior registered design of another person as a whole, the subsequent design is introduced within its own design without including the outline of the prior registered design and impairing the essential characteristics of the prior registered design, and the subsequent design is inevitably related to the implementation of the prior registered design.

[2] The case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the relation of the use of a design and failing to exhaust all deliberations, on the ground that the design subject to confirmation cannot be deemed to have been introduced within the registered design without impairing the essential characteristics of the registered design, and it cannot be deemed that the registered design is being used within its own design, on the ground that the name of the "V" was used repeatedly in some similar shapes, which are similar to the registered design "V," and that the shape of trees was repeated repeatedly among them, which are large between them, was combined with a mixed body, and the shape of the above "V," which is the essential characteristics of the registered design, was formed by combining them with one another, and the shape of the above "V," which is continuously repeated continuously and repeatedly.

[1] Article 69 of the Design Protection Act / [2] Article 69 of the Design Protection Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Hu888 delivered on August 24, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 1964)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Hong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Ynam Law Firm, Attorneys Cho Young-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2009Heo3466 Decided July 24, 2009

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

If a subsequent design is in the utilization relationship with a prior registered design, the subsequent design falls within the scope of the right to the prior registered design. The subsequent design refers to the relationship between the subsequent design and the prior registered design, which is not similar to the prior registered design of another person, as a whole, although the subsequent design is not similar to the prior registered design of another person, the subsequent design is introduced into its own design without including all of the essential features of the prior registered design and without impairing the essential characteristics of the prior registered design (see Supreme Court Decision 9Hu88 delivered on August 24, 199).

We examine in light of the above legal principles and records.

In comparison with the surface drawing and back of the instant registered design (registration No. 483945), the name “scriptive design” (registration No. 483945) and the design subject to confirmation, the two designs are identical in that there is no shape. However, the surface of the instant registered design “” is continuously and repeatedly consisting of “V’s shape,” which makes it visible to see as follows: (a) the actual shape of the instant registered design “,” which consists of several lines; and (b) the challenged design “,” which is larger in the shape, continuously consisting of the shapes of the instant registered design in the color of yellow system; and (c) the two designs are not similar to each other when considering the overall design. However, the challenged design was made repeatedly similar to the above V’s design, and some of the designs were repeatedly made in the shape of the instant registered design, which is identical to the design “V’s shape,” and thus, it cannot be deemed that the two designs are repeatedly formed and repeatedly made in the shape of the instant design without any substantial damage.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the challenged design belongs to the scope of the right in relation to the use of the registered design of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the use of the registered design of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)