A. Method of determining the similarity of designs

(b) The case holding that, as a whole, similar to the difference in the shape of the foundation, where the suspension at which two chairpersons with respect to street lights enter easily the snow of the general average person and the lower part are extremely similar;

A. Whether the design is similar should not be separately compared to each element comprising the design separately, but it should be determined depending on whether a person who observess the appearance as a whole, and makes another person feel a different aesthetic sense. If the dominant characteristics are similar, even if there are somewhat differences in the detailed aspects, the two chairpersons should be deemed similar.

(b) The case holding that both of the registered designs and the cited designs are both sections of the shape and shape of the "light pole" as the main body of the Speaker's height, and the body of the original body is divided into the foundation, bottom, suspension part and upper part of the body, and are combined, and thus, the most easy part leading people's attention among the shapes enters the body of the general average, with a height easily leading people's attention, and they are the suspension and bottom part leading people's attention, and the shape of the two designs are placed above the upper part of the width and the lower part of the design are placed in the shape of the bar, and it is difficult to see the shape of the bar at the lower part and lower part of the shape of the trees, and it is extremely similar to the shape and shape of the original body, and if only the part of the registered design is divided into the upper part, it is similar to the lower part of the original body to the original body's height, and the new difference between the original body and the lower part of the cited part of the registered design.

Article 5 (See current Article 5) of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 4208 of Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1024 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1926) 90Hu663 delivered on June 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1930) 93Hu1315 delivered on June 24, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2106)

claimant

Patent Attorney Lee Byung-il, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92DaDa337 delivered on June 30, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Whether the design is similar or not should be separately compared to each element, and it should be determined by whether a person who observess the foundation of the whole appearance of the foundation, and sees it to feel a different aesthetic sense. If the dominant characteristics are somewhat similar, the two chairpersons should be deemed similar even if there is a little difference in the situation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1024, Jun. 11, 1991; 90Hu63, Jun. 14, 1991; 93Hu1315, Jun. 24, 1994; 93Hu1315, Jun. 24, 1994; hereinafter the lower part of the shape of the bar-type and the lower part of the shape of the bar-type are easily distinguishable from those of the bar-type and the lower part of the bar-type and the lower part of the bar-type and the lower part of the bar-type of the body-type.

The original adjudication to this purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of designs, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the incomplete deliberation that affected the trial decision.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)