Design similarity judged on overall appearance rather than functional necessity

1. 01Question

   When judging whether a registered design for a cargo vehicle tool box is similar to a prior design, must similarity be decided on the overall appearance rather than on individual components, and may a common part for which alternative selectable forms can secure the article's function be evaluated as less important?

2. 02Holding

   It may not. Similarity is decided by comparing the whole appearance and asking whether it makes a viewer feel a different aesthetic impression, so that designs sharing the dominant features are similar even where details differ, and the aesthetic at the time of transaction counts alongside that at use. Where the common part is indispensable to securing the function of the article its importance is lowered, but where alternative selectable forms can secure that function the part is not indispensable and cannot be downgraded for being merely functional. Here the shared shapes of the tool box were not indispensable, and the differences in the embossed or debossed patterns did not displace the similarity of the dominant features, so the registered design was similar to the prior design and its registration had to be void.

   Summary of the holding, verbatim

   그러나 물품의 기능을 확보할 수 있는 선택 가능한 대체 형상이 존재하는 경우에는 물품의 기능을 확보하는 데에 불가결한 형상이 아니므로, 이 경우 단순히 기능과 관련된 형상이라는 이유만으로 디자인의 유사 여부 판단에 있어서 그 중요도를 낮게 평가하여서는 아니 된다.

   Unofficial English translation

   However, where there is an alternative selectable shape capable of securing the function of the article, since it is not a shape indispensable to securing the function of the article, in such a case the importance of that part must not be evaluated as low in determining the similarity of designs merely on the ground that it is a shape related to the function.

3. 03Disposition

   Dismissed Stated in the decision

   상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

4. 04Form of the test

   Elements stated Stated in the decision

   디자인의 유사 여부는 이를 구성하는 각 요소를 분리하여 개별적으로 대비할 것이 아니라 그 외관을 전체적으로 대비 관찰하여 보는 사람으로 하여금 상이한 심미감을 느끼게 하는지 여부에 따라 판단하여야 하고, 그 지배적인 특징이 유사하다면 세부적인 점에 다소 차이가 있을지라도 유사하다고 보아야 한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The similarity of designs must be determined not by separating and individually comparing each element constituting the design, but according to whether the appearance, when compared and observed as a whole, gives a person who sees it a different aesthetic sense, and if the dominant features are similar, it must be regarded as similar even though there are somewhat differing points in the details.

5. 05Factors

   • 그 외관을 전체적으로 대비 관찰하여 보는 사람으로 하여금 상이한 심미감을 느끼게 하는지 여부에 따라 판단하여야 하고
   • 그 지배적인 특징이 유사하다면 세부적인 점에 다소 차이가 있을지라도 유사하다고 보아야 한다
   • 디자인이 표현된 물품의 사용 시뿐만 아니라 거래 시의 외관에 의한 심미감도 함께 고려해야 한다
   • 양 디자인의 공통되는 부분은 화물차량용 공구함의 기능을 확보하는 데에 불가결한 형상이라고 보기는 어렵고
   • 양 디자인은 몸체부 및 여닫이문 부분에 양각 또는 음각으로 형성된 무늬의 위치 및 모양 등 일부 차이점이 있기는 하나, 이러한 차이점이 양 디자인의 지배적 특징의 유사성을 상쇄하여 서로 상이한 심미감을 가지게 할 정도라고 보기는 어려우므로

   Unofficial English translation

   • the determination must be made according to whether its appearance, when compared and observed as a whole, gives a person who sees it a different aesthetic sense, and

   • if the dominant features are similar, it must be regarded as similar even though there are somewhat differing points in the details

   • the aesthetic sense derived from the appearance at the time of not only the use but also the transaction of the article in which the design is embodied must also be taken into account together

   • the parts common to the two designs cannot be regarded as a shape indispensable to securing the function of the tool box for a cargo vehicle, and

   • although the two designs have some differences in the positions and shapes of the patterns formed embossed or recessed on the body portion and the hinged door portion, such differences are difficult to regard as reaching the extent of offsetting the similarity of the dominant features of the two designs and giving them different aesthetic senses, and therefore

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

   대법원 2012. 6. 14. 선고 2012후597 판결(공2012하, 1237)

   Unofficial English translation

   Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu597 decided June 14, 2012 (Gong 2012 Ha, 1237)

   Decisions referred to

   [1] 대법원 2010. 5. 13. 선고 2010후265 판결, 대법원 2012. 6. 14. 선고 2012후597 판결(공2012하, 1237)

7. 07Burden of proof

   Not addressed Not in the decision

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   What makes a form an alternative selectable form capable of securing the function of the article, so that a shared part counts as indispensable or not?

   A later Supreme Court decision on how alternative selectable forms are identified would require this entry to be read again, as would an amendment to Article 2(i) or Article 33(1) of the Design Protection Act. The registered number of the design in this case is omitted from the official text, so the drawings must be taken from the record.

Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.

Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.