Method of determining the similarity of designs

In determining the similarity of the design, each element of the design should not be considered partially, but be considered to be in the overall relationship, and if the dominant characteristics are similar, even if there are some differences in detail, the two chairpersons should be considered to be similar.

Article 5 (1) 3 of the Design Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 355, Nov. 10, 1987) (Gong1998, 01) and 85Hu27 (Gong1987, 237)

Han Han-song

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 88Na1118 dated August 30, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In determining the similarity of a design, each element of the design shall not be deemed to be part, but shall be deemed to be in the overall relationship, and if the dominant characteristics are similar, even if there are some differences in detail, the two chairpersons shall be deemed to be similar (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu101, Nov. 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 85Hu27, Dec. 23, 1986; 85Hu27, Dec. 23, 1986). Furthermore, if a design registration is sought, a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design belongs shall not be a design easily created by a design recorded in a publication distributed domestically or overseas before the application for design registration is filed.

The court below held that, in comparison with this, the core of the device is the combination of the shape and shape of the gate, and the two chairpersons are continuously posted and connected with the Madmon in a rectangular shape, and the overall shape and shape are similar. Although the core design is a rectangular type where the Madmon is small, and there is a difference in the shape formed in a large large and small Madmon at intervals compared with the quotation, the core design cannot escape the dominant characteristics of a similar quantity, and the core design can easily be created from the quotation, and thus, the core design cannot be registered.

According to the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below's decision are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles of the Design Act or the incomplete hearing.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)