[1] The criteria for determining the similarity of a design and whether the legal principle applies to a design of a font as provided by Article 2 subparagraph 1-2 of the Design Protection Act (affirmative), and the factors to be considered in determining the similarity of a design of a font (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner decided to reject the registration on the grounds that the application design, the comparable design, and the comparable design applied earlier, which are similar to the prior application, the case affirming the judgment below holding that the patent application design and the comparable design are similar

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1-2 and Article 5(1)3 of the Design Protection Act / [2] Article 2 subparag. 1-2, Article 5(1)3, and Article 16(1) of the Design Protection Act

Han Bank Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Song Man-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2011Heo9115 Decided January 18, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In determining the requirements for registration of a design, whether the design is similar shall not be separately prepared, but shall be determined depending on whether a person who observess the appearance of the design as a whole causes different aesthetic sense. If the dominant characteristics are similar, it shall be deemed similar even if there is little difference in detail (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu1097, Jan. 25, 2007, etc.). This legal doctrine applies likewise to the design of a font as provided in Article 2 subparag. 1-2 of the Design Protection Act. Meanwhile, since a design does not require a commodity character, many letters have been developed in various ways since human beings performed a character, and it is difficult to change the design significantly in terms of the relationship that requires design considering the basic form of letters and toxicity as an essential element, such similarity should be determined by sufficiently taking into account the unique characteristics of the font.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) of this case’s design using the subject matter as “English font” (application number No. 30-2009-1591), comparative design, comparative design as indicated in the judgment of the court below; (b) the two designs are: (c) the two designs have the same distribution and weight-centered as the two sides at the border; (d) the individual English pattern, shape, and weight; (e) the two designs are similar to the two design at the bottom of the columns, on the ground that the two designs are composed of several types from the right side; (e) the shape or comparative design as indicated in the judgment of the court below; (e) the shape or comparative design as stated in the judgment of the court below; (e) the shape or comparative design as the top of the line, and (e) the shape or comparative design as the shape of the design at issue at bar, and (e) the shape or comparativeization of the two design at bar is not the same as the two design at bar.”

In light of the above legal principles and records, even if the unique characteristics of the font design are fully considered, the patent application design of this case and comparative design of this case are similar. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the similarity of

In addition, among the reasons for the judgment of the court below in Article 3-B-1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act, the phrase "attached Table 6" in Article 5 (2) 3-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act is obvious that the judgment of the court below is erroneous that it is "attached Forms 6 and 6 of Article 5 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Design Protection Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy No. 180 of March 31, 201)", but it is not a reason for correction of the judgment and it is not a reason

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 on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)