Reasons for and scope of rights of an announcement which cannot be seen as an organic combination with a new technical effect.

Recognizing that the utility model registration requirements fall under Japan, it seems that the same device was filed three years prior to Japan by Japan, and the publication of the application was made prior to the application, but there were many examples that were conducted prior to the publication of the device in terms of the circumstances of business since then, and the current situation of transportation and communications between Japan and Korea and the applicant, and the fact that there was a refusal ruling by giving a new design application different from the previous application filed by Japan, which is presumed to have been filed by Japan, was presumed to have been filed with the knowledge of the above Japanese applicant’s drawings.

Article 25 of the Design Act

64.10.22, 63Hu45 decided Feb. 28, 1967; 66Hu10 decided Feb. 28, 196

An appellant for an appeal

The respondent of the appeal

Patent Country

The original adjudication shall be destroyed,

The case shall be remanded to the appeal by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.

The Second Ground of Appeal

Since the utility model right and design right have a specific device on the shape, structure, or combination of the former goods (the spatial form) and the latter have an aesthetic device on the shape, pattern, or color of the goods and the combination thereof, both do not appear to have an essential difference, but they are identical in that they have a new and creative device, and thus, their opinions on the claim for confirmation of the scope of a utility model right related to the same point (i.e., the latter) are consistent with the design right. Thus, in determining the specific scope of a utility model right, the court below should consider the technical level at the time of the application as it is difficult to determine the technical scope of the utility model right as it is, and if it is recognized as an exclusive right only because the registered portion of the public use was stated in the specification or drawing of the utility model right, it is inconsistent with the spirit of the Utility Model Act, and the court below's decision on the claim for confirmation of the scope of a utility model right cannot be deemed to have existed as an organic combination of technical effects on the utility model right (the court below's decision 26081).6).

Since then, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all members.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Marins (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea