Criteria for determining similarity of designs

The main body of the Speaker is to attract an aesthetic hobby in the mind of a person who sees it. Thus, in determining the similarity of the Speaker, each element that constitutes it should not be partly seen, but the similarity of aesthetic impression and appearance to be ventilated in the mind of a person who regards it as a whole in the whole. Therefore, if the dominant characteristics are similar, even if there are somewhat differences in detailed points, both Speakers should be deemed similar.

Article 4 (1) 3 of the Design Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Hu111 Decided July 8, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 88Hu27 Decided December 23, 1986

1. The case where the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 are involved in the case where the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1 are involved in the case

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 872 decided May 31, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the main body of a design is to attract an aesthetic hobby to the mind of a person who sees it, it is not to see part of each element in determining the similarity of designs, but to determine the similarity of aesthetic impression and appearance to be ventilated in the overall relationship with the whole, and if the dominant characteristics are similar, even if there are some differences in detailed points, they are similar to each other (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Hu11, Jul. 8, 1986; 85Hu27, Dec. 23, 1986). Meanwhile, if a design registration is sought, a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design belongs shall not be easily created by a design indicated in a publication distributed domestically or overseas before the application for design registration is filed (Article 5(2) of the Design Act).

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, when comparing both the chairman and the cited Speaker consider the combination of the shape and shape of the vehicle as the outline of the device, they first set up a net set at the front of the shape and the front left door of the net set. The two chairpersons formed the net set at the front side of the shape, carried on the front side of the net set, and the shape or pattern was formed between the left and right set at the bottom of the Hadart, and “the formation form of the pattern is formed, the formation form is considered as a whole, and the form is similar in terms of the upper part of the Hadart set at the bottom of the Hadart below the Hadart, and even on the right side map, the formation of the shape and glass and the side part of the Hadart set connected to the glass mold and the present net set, and thus, the chairman, compared to the cited Chapter, formed the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the pa.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below's decision shall be justified in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles of the Design Act or incomplete hearing, incomplete hearing, incomplete reasoning, or inconsistent reasoning. Thus, the argument 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 Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)