(a) the meaning of objective creativity required under the Design Act;

(b) Whether the design attached to the outside side of a physical exercise picture has objective creativity (negative);

(a) objective creativity required by the Design Act is not just a unique device that is not identical or similar to the past or present, but also a device that combines an aesthetic device that gives a new aesthetic impression to the inventor, and thus, can be registered under the Design Act to the extent that the previous design is of an aesthetic value different from the previous design. In determining the originality or newness of the design, the overall design must be compared and observed.

B. In comparison with the lid lids in the shape of lids attached to the outer side of the scambling project, the design of this case is not objective creativity when comparing with the lid lids in the outer side of the scambling design (1) registered before the application for this case, the following and the following are somewhat small and the width of the scambs around them, and the reflect shape may be cut down, and the shape is similar in the shape of the scambling shape in the above semi-scambling form (2). The pattern in the shape of the scambling shape in the above semi-scambling form is the same as the pattern in the shape of the scambling pattern (2) already registered, and it is merely merely a simple combination of the materials of the devices as referred to in (1) and (2) of the scambling design that can be easily created by the

Article 5 (2) of the Design Act

United Nations Es. Es. Rocopod

Attorney Kim Jong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 15 delivered on June 13, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term "design" as referred to in the Design Act refers to the shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof as shown in the external appearance of a product that may cause an aesthetic impression in time. It does not include any technical idea that uses the natural law, but the objective creativity required by the Design Act is not only a unique thing that is not identical or similar to that of the past or present, but also an objective creativity required by the Design Act, which is the basis of past and present, if a device that combines a device that causes a new aesthetic impression of a device and that is recognized as an aesthetic value different from the previous design, can be registered in accordance with the Design Act. In determining the existence of a design, it is the theory that the overall design should be compared and observed.

In comparison with the lid lid shape (1) attached to the quoted design (1) registered in the outer side of this case before this case, the chairperson of this case is somewhat small, and the width of the following and the bottom of this case can be prone, and the shape is similar, and the design of this case is identical in the shape of the pattern of the stable shape in the above half of this case as it is identical to the pattern of the stable shape of the quotation (2) already registered. The chairperson of this case is merely a simple combination of the materials of the design (1) and (2) and it is not objective creative as a whole when it can be easily created by the above quoted design publicly notified in the application before this case. The decision of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the selection of newness or non-existence of the evidence, and the decision of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the process of the selection of evidence and the decision of the court below.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)