A. Criteria for determining similarity of designs

B. Criteria for determining whether a design has been newly created or not

A. The term “design” means the shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof of articles that may cause a decorative aesthetic sense through a visual sense. As such, whether the design is identical or similar should be determined according to the aesthetic sense, not by partially separating each element constituting the design, but by comparing and observing the whole and other elements. Even if there is a publicly known part among the elements, it should be determined according to the same or similar element, unless it does not cause a special aesthetic sense.

B. Even if the individual shape and pattern constituting a design belongs to an open space, if they are combined so that they may cause a new decorations and aesthetic sense, and if they are deemed an intelligent device to the extent that they could not be easily created, the design is considered to be a device with originality and creativity. However, if the combination of individual shape and pattern does not cause a new decorations and aesthetic sense or has no value as a technical creation, it cannot be the subject of design registration due to lack of originality and creativity.

(a) Articles 4 and 5(1)3(b) of the Design Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Hu46 delivered on July 26, 1983

Attorney Ba-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 18 of the 1983 Korean Intellectual Property Office (Law Firm Kim Gyeong-sung, Attorney Kim Jong-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 18 delivered on June 13, 1983, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 1 by the appellant for stone.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the summary of the device of the design of this case of this case, which was filed on November 11, 1981 and registered on June 12, 1982, with a different shape from the upper part of the main part of the main part of the main part of the main part of the main body of the design of this case, which was registered on June 12, 1982, attached a string shape indicating the string shape and the shape indicating the string shape different from the surface of the string in the string. The summary of the shape and shape indicating the string shape, which is different from the surface of the stringma, is not new and creative because it is almost the same as the 2nd part of the quotation that was listed in the publication distributed in a foreign country prior to the filing of the application for the registration of this case. Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the evidence No. 18, which was recorded

However, according to the records, the above Gap evidence No. 18 is a publication for product advertisement of the claimant company, and it is recognized that "c. 1980.Evoys U.S.A.C. c." is printed at the bottom of the above document. Since the bottom printing part appears to have indicated the right of printing in the United States, the first published year and the right of registration in the United States, it is presumed that the above publication is a publication distributed in the United States in 1980, a registered design application of this case, unless there are any special reasons.

Ultimately, the argument is groundless because it is nothing more than an error of legitimate judgment of the court below.

2. We examine both the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 together (the supplemental appellate brief of Kim Ha and Kim Jong-hee, a claimant for the trial, was submitted after the expiration of the submission period, and it is judged to the extent of supplement in case of the above grounds of

(1) The term "design" means the shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof of goods, which may cause a decorative aesthetic sense through the visual sense. As such, whether or not a design is identical or similar shall not be separately prepared, but shall be determined by the aesthetic sense, which is made by a person who is seeed by observing and observing the whole as compared with the whole, and even if there is a publicly known part among the elements, it shall be determined by the same or similar nature according to the common aesthetic sense, including it, unless it does not cause a special aesthetic sense (see Supreme Court Decision 81Hu46 delivered on July 26, 1983).

According to the records, the device summary of the registered design of this case is "a pattern and shot pattern attached to the outside side of the sports composition". The original decision has a different shape, pattern, and subsequent blusium from the shape, pattern, and shape attached to the upper part of the sports composition, which are the main body of the design of this case. The main body of the design of this case is to distinguish the main body of the device from the shape, pattern, and the second part of the physical part of the physical part of the physical part of the physical part of the physical part of the physical part of the physical part of the physical part of the physical part of the invention from the two main body of the shape, pattern, and shape indicating the blus pattern different from the shape, pattern, and the second part of the physical part of the physical part of the device, and to the purport that the latter design of this case is not new and creative as seen above. In comparison with ① of the cited part of the earlier application, the author determined that the device of this case is not identical with the device of the digital part of the physical part of the physical part.

The above explanation of the decision of the court below is, first of all, to the effect that each summary of the registered design of this case is new and creative, and further, it is clear that even if the summary of each device is combined with the cited intent, it cannot be recognized as a particular new creative nature. Thus, it is not reasonable to argue that the original decision of the court below committed an unlawful act of conducting partial separate observation without conducting an observation compared to the overall comparison, by misapprehending the legal principles on comparative observation.

(2) Even if the individual shape and pattern constituting a design belongs to an open space, if they are combined so that they may cause new decorations and aesthetic sense and easily create them, the design is considered to be a device with originality and creativity. However, if the combination of individual shape and pattern does not cause new decorations or value as a technical creation, it cannot be a design registration due to lack of originality and creativity.

According to the records, the registered design of this case is a design which combines the shape and pattern bearing the shape and pattern, which combines the shape and shape, which is indicated in the shape and shape following the sports composition, unlike the reinforcement of the upper part of the elbows, the reinforcement of the sports composition, and the shape of the animal indicated in the reinforcement of the elbows and the shape of the embows in comparison with the cited design, as decided by the original trial decision, though there is no little difference between the shape and the shape of the animal indicated in the shape of the embows in comparison with the cited design, some of the registered design of this case is not different from the cited design, it cannot be seen as a new device in the influent aesthetic sense, and it is difficult to recognize the creativity, and there is no reason to hold that the original trial decision of this case is in violation of the principle of equity in comparison with the social experience in comparison with the Speaker.

3. 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 Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)