초록 열기/닫기 버튼
대법원 2014. 11. 13. 선고 2014후1501 판결(대상판결)은 “디자인의 유사여부는 이를 구성하는 각 요소를 분리하여 개별적으로 대비할 것이 아니라 그 외관을 전체적으로 대비 관찰하여 보는 사람으로 하여금 상이한 심미감을 느끼게 하는지의 여부에 따라 판단하여야 하므로, 그 지배적인 특징이 유사하다면 세부적인 점에 다소 차이가 있을지라도 유사하다고 보아야 한다.”고 판시하였다. 대상판결은 디자인의 요부를 중심으로 전체 대비관찰을 통하여 디자인의 유사여부를 판단한 주류적 판례의 입장에서 선 사례로서 판단 및 결론 도출의 과정이 이와 유사한 사안을 판단함에 있어 구체적인 기준이 될 수 있다는 점에서 의의가 있다. 디자인권의 침해판단의 실체적 판단은 디자인의 유사여부의 판단이 핵심이다. 대법원은 디자인의 유사여부에 대하여 일관되게 “심미감설”을 취하고 있다. 한국․EU․일본에서 디자인 유사여부 판단기준이 되는 디자인의 유사여부에 대한 기준은 디자인을 구성하는 각 요소를 분리하여 개별적으로 대비하는 것이 아니고, 보는 사람이 그 외관을 전체적으로 관찰하여 느끼는 심미감에 따라 판단한다.
The Korean Supreme Court’s decision from November 13, 2014 for Case No. 2014Hu1501 states that the similarity of designs should be determined by judging whether observers have aesthetic sensibilities from the comparison of the overall exterior appearance of designs, not their individual components; therefore, if dominant features of any two designs are similar, even though differences between their specific features can be observed, these designs are considered to be similar. This decision is consistent with mainstream precedent to determine the similarity of designs through the overall comparison; this decision has important implications for providing a specific standard for similar cases. The similarity of designs is the key for a substantive determination with regard to the infringement of the design right. The Supreme Court has consistently adhered to the view of aesthetic sensibility on the similarity of designs. The standard of the similarity of designs in Korea, Japan, and the EU is based on the aesthetic sensibility which observers obtain through an overall observation of the exterior appearance of designs, rather than through a comparison of their individual components. Since Korea, Japan and the EU share the same legal principles for determining the similarity of design, there are few cross-cultural differences. Korea and Japan adhere to the principle of an overall observation to compare designs and, if necessary, a comparison of the individual features of the designs at stake. When comparing individual features of designs, their function and vacant parts are of little importance and their small differences and functional features are excluded. The EU also adheres to the principle of an overall observation and a comparison of features. When comparing individual features of designs, small differences between them and their functional features are excluded. However, there are differences among those who judge the similarities of designs: they are ordinary consumers in Korea, users with ordinary skills in the pertinent art in the EU, and consumers in Japan. While Korea and Japan determine the similarity of products, the EU does not. The Korean Supreme Court’s decision, which is consistent with the mainstream precedent which takes the view of aesthetic sensibility, was made based on both an overall observation and a comparison of individual features.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
Design Infringement, Overall Observation, Observation of Essential Features, Scope of Design Right, Aesthetic Sensibility, Similarity Judgment
