[1] The meaning of the device under the Utility Model Act and the requirements for the legality of registration

[2] The case holding that the technical composition is similar to the cited idea, but it is recognized that the registered device has newness and non-obviousness

[1] The term "commercial device" as prescribed by the Utility Model Act is the creation of technical ideas utilizing natural laws relating to the shape and structure of goods or the combination of goods, and is equivalent to the invention of a high level of technical idea meeting human demand and its nature, which is the creation of a high level of technological idea meeting the human demand, but is not a high level. Thus, a utility model encouraged, protected, and cultivated under the Utility Model Act is not only the special form of goods, but also the object of a practical value and a technical device, and its effect as the creation of a technical idea, is the main standard to determine the appropriateness of registration.

[2] The case holding that the technical composition is similar to the cited idea, but it is recognized that the registered device has newness and non-obviousness

[1] Article 5 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990) / [2] Article 5 (2) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990) (see current Article 4 (2))

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1787 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 395), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu2254 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1723), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1715 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2666), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1637 delivered on July 8, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2372), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2319 delivered on October 10, 197 (Gong197Ha, 3459)

Senior Industrial Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

U.S.S.C. (Patent Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 94DaDa386 dated November 29, 1996

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

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below prepared the registered device of this case and the cited device of this case concerning "Apoppy for the manufacture of new technology" which was registered as the utility model registration number (registration number omitted) on December 6, 1989. The registered device of this case is a Poppy for preventing the transformation of the shape of Apop when attaching a bottom by putting the Apopon over the shape at the time of the manufacture of physical exercise, and the cited device is related to the string of the stopon for attaching a tag to the goods such as clothes, etc., and the purpose of the device is below, but in technical composition, the registered device of this case is composed of a cross-section between the two parts of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part and the upper part of the upper part of the registered design of this case, and it is recognized that the cited design of this case was made for the purpose of the cross-section and the corresponding part of the registered design of this case.

The term "useal device" under the Utility Model Act is a creation of technical ideas utilizing rules of nature relating to the shape and structure of goods or the combination of goods. It is the same as an invention that is a high level of technical ideas that meet human demand and creates a certain effect by staticly using nature as prescribed by the Patent Act, and accordingly is in the same sense as that of an advanced creation of technical ideas meeting human demand. However, utility models that are encouraged, protected, and promoted under the Utility Model Act are not limited to a special form of goods, but also the object of practical value and technical device. The creation of a technical idea, the effect of which is appropriate for registration, is the main standard (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Hu1715, Jul. 30, 1996; 94Hu1787, Dec. 12, 1995).

기록에 의하여 살펴보면, 이 사건 등록고안과 인용고안은 동일 계통의 재료를 사용한 것으로서 그 구조나 형상에 있어서 유사하나, 이 사건 등록고안에서는 조임간 양쪽 끝의 걸림간이 모두 신발의 끝 구멍에 걸리도록 하기 위한 것이어서 서로 다른 모양을 취해야 할 이유가 없기 때문에 거의 같은 모양으로 형성되어 있음에 반하여, 인용고안에서는 필라멘트 한쪽 끝의 두부는 가격표 등의 이탈을 방지하기 위하여 넓게 형성되고 다른 쪽 끝의 횡봉은 의류 등의 구멍을 작게 내기 위하여 좁게 형성된 차이가 있어, 그 기술적 구성이 동일하다고는 볼 수 없고, 목적과 작용효과에 있어서도, 이 사건 등록고안은 신발 제조시 신발 갑피를 형틀에 씌워 밑창을 부착할 때와 증기실에서 증숙할 때 신발 갑피가 펴지지 않거나 쭈글쭈글하게 변형되는 것을 방지하기 위하여 신발 끈 구멍에 끼워 갑피를 팽팽하게 해주고, 신발 완성 후에는 가위 등으로 조임간을 끊어 내어 신발과 형틀의 분리를 간편하게 하는 목적과 작용효과가 있는 것임에 대하여, 인용고안은 의류 등의 물품에 가격표 등의 꼬리표를 부착하기 위한 것으로서, 의류 등의 물품 자체에는 큰 구멍을 내지 않고 가격표 등의 꼬리표는 이를 보는 소비자들이 그 기재 내용을 확인할 수 있도록 임의의 방향으로 움직이되 쉽게 이탈되지 않도록 하는 목적과 작용효과가 있는 것이므로, 이 사건 등록고안과 인용고안은 기술적 구성은 다소 유사하더라도 산업상 이용분야와 고안의 목적·작용효과가 판이하여 신발 제조 분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자가 인용고안에 의하여 극히 용이하게 이 사건 등록고안을 고안할 수 있다고 보기는 어렵다 할 것 이다.

Thus, although the registered device of this case can not be easily implemented by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field concerned, and is a new and non-obviousness device, the court below held that the registration of this case is null and void without properly examining this issue. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of inventive step of the device or failing to exhaust all deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the trial decision. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)