Whether it is similar to the design concerning the establishment of a clean water control system

The private roads, roads, and low altitudes of the registered design of this case are as follows: [private roads 1], [1], 1], and 1], respectively, (a) of the designs of the design of this case are as follows: [2], [2], 3], 3], and 3], and 3], respectively, respectively. The pre-registered designs are as follows: [3], 3] and 3], each of the private roads and right pages of the pre-registered designs of this case are [1], 2] and 3 [3], and 4], as well as (a) the design or pre-registered designs of an earlier application are installed with four signs; and (b) the designs of the registered design of this case are installed with only one board attached, or the designs of the registered design and the design of this case are installed with its appearance and shape, and thus, they can not be seen as having any difference between the two designs and the entire designs, and thus, they can not be seen as having any difference in the overall public design.

Articles 5(1) and 69 of the Design Act

Claimant (Patent Attorney Kim Byung-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Appellant 1 and one other (Patent Attorney Shin Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Na271 dated February 23, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the respondent.

The grounds of appeal by the attorney of the respondent are examined.

According to the records, the registered design of this case is not identical to the (A) design of this case and one unit of registration [limited to the design registration with the registration number of July 20, 191; hereinafter the same shall apply], the design of an earlier application [limited to each application for design registration with the registration number of August 2, 198 and (2 omitted)], and the design of the earlier application is similar to the design of this case [1] and [1] and the design of the first unit of the registered design [2] and [3] are identical to the above-mentioned design [2] and [3] and each of the registered designs [3] and each of the registered designs [4] are installed at the bottom of the first unit of the registered design, which are identical to the above-mentioned section of the registered design [3] and each of the registered designs [4].

Therefore, the argument that the registered design of this case only consists of a publicly known design, or can be easily created by the combination of such publicly known designs, and therefore, the scope of the right cannot be recognized because the design without objective creativity is not recognized. The argument that the registered design of this case belongs to the scope of the right because it is similar to the design of earlier application and the pre-registered design of this case is similar to the above pre-registered design, and the argument that the registered design of this case belongs to the scope of the right, and therefore the petitioner's registered design of this case is not being carried out cannot be accepted as an independent opinion.

Therefore, even if the court below did not explicitly determine the respondent's above assertion, as seen earlier, the argument in the grounds of appeal on the premise of the above determination and the argument that it would be inconsistent with the above determination cannot be affected by the result of the decision of this case is without merit. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)