The case holding that both Speakers are different in the shape, and the same Speakers are registered, and both Speakers are different in consideration of the depth of appearance at the time of transaction as well as at the time of use.

The case holding that a registered design is a window frame, a pre-registered quoted design (registration number omitted) is the absence of windows, and both Speakers are the same as similar goods of the same kind, and the apology and degree of the registered design are the same as [g 1] and [g 2], respectively, [g 3] and [g 4] respectively, and both Speakers are somewhat similar to [g 3] and [g 4], and both Speakers are completely different in the shape and shape of the upper part, and the remaining shape and shape of the lower part are completely different, and the chairperson of the windows are created and registered in a number of pages without restriction, and the similarity of the Speakers should be considered and determined together at the time of use as well as at the time of trade, and the similarity of the Speakers cannot be seen as similar when observing from the perspective of ordinary consumers in the overall relation.

Article 5 of the Design Act

Han Total Chemical Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Eastern U.S.C. (Patent Attorney Cho Chang-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Na233 dated March 30, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. All costs of appeal are assessed against the claimant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below determined that the registered design of this case is the window frame, and the cited design (registration number omitted) of this case is the same kind of design as its windows, and both of the registered design is the same as [glim 1] and [glim 2], respectively, and the quoted design is the same as [glim 3] and [glim 4], respectively, and the quoted design is a shape and shape as the shape and form respectively. The two chairpersons are somewhat similar only to the protruding part of the upper part, and the shape and shape at the upper part are completely different, and the remaining shape and shape at the lower part are completely different, and the design of the windows has been created and registered, and the similarity of the design should be considered as narrow. Since the similarity of the design should be considered not only at the time of use, but also at the time of transaction, it cannot be deemed that the reduction and increase are similar when observing the design from the perspective of general consumers in the overall relation.

In light of the records, the decision of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of creativity and similarity of a design, incomplete deliberation, and omission of judgment. There is no reason to argue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)