A. Criteria for determining similarity of designs

(b) A precedent that held that even though there is a gap between the cited intent and the omitted, a design that cannot be registered because the overall shape is similar.

A. The determination of the similarity of a design is not partially seen as part of each element constituting the design, but is similar to the dominant characteristics in the overall relationship, if a certain difference is somewhat different in the detailed characteristics, the two chairpersons should be deemed as similar.

(b) A precedent that held that even though there is a gap between the cited intent and the omitted, a design that cannot be registered because the overall shape and pattern are similar.

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Hu63 delivered on May 28, 1985, 84Hu60 delivered on March 25, 1986

Patent Attorney Park Jong-Palympib Cambodia, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant

Park Sung-sung

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 615 decided August 31, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

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

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below, in comparison with the main sentence and the quoted letter, found the shape of both sentences in comparison with the shape of the original sentence, the Speaker of the original sentence would be similar to the shape of the body. In light of the shape of both sentences, the Speaker of the original sentence would be similar to the shape of the knife. However, the Speaker of the original sentence would be similar to the shape of the knife in the shape of the knife. However, the knife that the knife has formed a knife with the appearance of the knife. The knife.e., the knife, the knife would not escape the dominant character of the two sentences. Thus, since the knife could not be said to be different in the shape of the knife, the Speaker of the original sentence is judged to have been easily created from the head of the original sentence and maintained the first examination of Article 5 (2) of the Design Act.

The decision on the similarity of the Speaker does not partially see each element that constitutes it, but if the dominant characteristics are similar to those of the whole, if the dominant characteristics are different from those of the whole, the Speaker shall be deemed similar to each other. In light of the records, the recognition and decision on the above decision of the court below is acceptable in comparison with the whole of the shape, shape, and shape of the main source and the quotation, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 5 (2) of the Design Act or misunderstanding the legal reasoning in disregarding the empirical rule of a general trade system, such as the theory of lawsuit, and failing to exhaust all deliberations, or in judging the creativity of the Speaker. The precedents of the lawsuit are different, and thus are not appropriate in this case. No matter discussed or acceptable.

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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)