A. Criteria for determining similarity of designs

(b) The case holding that a design registration cannot be obtained on the grounds that the form method of a stone flag is different, and the shape, shape, and shape, which is visually sensed as a whole, are similar;

A. Determination of similarity of a design is not partially seen as part of each element constituting it, but if a dominant feature is similar to one another in the overall relationship, the two chairpersons should be deemed similar even if there are somewhat differences in the detailed characteristics.

B. The chairman of thiswon set up two semi-presidential stones in the vicinity of the flusium and set up at regular intervals in the shape and shape of the flusium, wherein the flusium was set up at a certain intervals, and the flusium prior to the application is set up by 1 two strings of the flus pattern, which are set up at regular intervals. The two chairpersons are somewhat different from the fact that the flusium was set up in the main body and that the flus of the flusium was set up in the flusium at regular intervals. However, the flusium is similar in the shape, shape, and the brus of the flusium at regular intervals, so the chairman of thiswon cannot obtain a design registration pursuant to Article 12

(a) Article 5(b) of the Design Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Hu59 delivered on December 11, 1984

Patent Attorney Park Byung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 1066 Dated May 16, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The ground of appeal by claimant's representative is examined.

Determination of similarity of a design is not partly viewed as part of each element, but if the dominant characteristics are similar to those of the whole, even if there is a little difference in its detailed characteristics. According to the original decision, the chairperson of the application for design registration (registration No. 1 omitted) of 1982, which was filed by the claimant for the registration of the design, set up two anti-pickers around the flusium in 1982, and is in the shape and shape formed at regular intervals by placing two anti-pickers around the five flusium, and the chairperson of the application for design registration (registration No. 2 omitted) of 1976, which was filed earlier, (registration No. 2 omitted) has been filed in the vicinity of the original form, and it is not inconsistent with the rules of evidence at regular intervals, and the two chairpersons are not inconsistent with the rules of evidence and the decision of the court below on the design registration of the 1976 et al., which is inconsistent with the rules of evidence.

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 on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)