The meaning of objective creativity as a requirement for design registration.

In the design, objective creativity refers to the separation of aesthetic sense from other designs in view of view, and it does not mean a strict originality, so if an aesthetic device that combines a device that gives a new aesthetic sense to a designer based on the past and present idea, it is reasonable to view that the design can be registered in accordance with the Design Act if the entire design is recognized to the extent that the other aesthetic value is recognized from the previous design (the design of this case is related to the physical short circuit).

Article 5 of the former Design Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee) 88Hu134 decided Sep. 26, 1989 (Gong1989, 1582)

Ha Tae-An Patent Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

South Korean Peninsulas

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 87 No. 246 dated July 10, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the claimant shall be examined together.

1. The objective creativity in a design refers to the separation from other designs by time. The objective creativity required by the Design Act does not refer to a strict meaning, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the design is entitled to obtain a design registration under the Design Act if an aesthetic device that combines a device that combines a device that gives a new aesthetic impression to the inventor in the past and in the past is recognized as having a different aesthetic value from the previous design (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Hu32, Aug. 18, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 88Hu134, Sept. 26, 198; Supreme Court Decision 88Hu134, Feb. 9, 190; Supreme Court Decision 9Hu1295, Feb. 9, 199).

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below held that although the claimant's physical training bomb, No. 44785, the main body training bomb, which is the design of this case, had a little difference in the fact that the president of the physical training bomb, which is the main body bomb, is the main body bomb, and the president of the physical training bomb, which is indicated in Gap's No. 3, had a difference in the fact that the main body bomb, which is the main body bomb, is in the straight line, but when considering the whole as a whole, the main body bomb, which is composed of several main body bombs, connected with the bombs in the main body bomb, which is the main body bomb, and the two similar arguments were raised because the increase was almost the same.

According to the record, the author shall observe and observe the development of this building and the drawing number Dab(W)-1001, Dab(W-1002 and Dab(W-1003) and the Dob-103 which are the quoted design as shown in Gap evidence. The Dab-1001 shall be similar to the shape, pattern, and Dob-102 of the Dab-102, and the comparison observation with the Dab-101 chairman may be replaced by the comparison with the Dab-102 chairman and the Dob-102 chairman, and the Dob-102 chairman’s development of the Dob-102 chairman and the Dob-102 chairman’s development of the Dob-102 chairman and the Dob-100 Dob-102 chairman’s development of the Dob-100 Dob-1, the bund-2 Dobund-1, which are connected to the central bund.

Next, in comparison with the development of the design of this case and the development of Dab-103 design and the Dob-103 design of this case, if the two Dob-103 design are observed, the Dob-103 design is attached to the upper part of the Dob-103 design, while the Dob-103 design is attached to the upper part of the Dob-103 design, the Dob-103 design is attached to the upper part of the Dob-100 design, and the Dob-103 design is equal in the shape of the Dob-103 design, while the Dob-103 design is in the shape of the Dob-103 design, the Dob-1003 design is in the shape of the Dob-100 shape, and the Dob-10 Dob-3 design is not in the shape of the Dob-10 Dob-1.

2. Although the original adjudication is erroneous in the misapprehension of the theory of the lawsuit that only prepared, observe, and decided that this case is a design different from the quoted design cited by the claimant, even in comparison with the present design and all the Speakers inserted in the No. 3, it cannot be deemed that the above error affected the result of the trial decision, since the author of this case is different from the quoted design, even in comparison with the author of this case and all the Speakers inserted in the No. 3, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above error affected the conclusion of the trial decision. All the arguments are without merit.

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)