RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      디자인의 동일 또는 유사 여부 판단 = Determining whether a design is same or similar with another

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A100088941

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      Modern society is product-oriented one. Various products that are manufactured and sold stimulate consumers' desire. Hence, the manufacturer tries to make products that are equipped with beautiful appearance as well as excellent quality and functions. For consumers, who want to express their personalities through their products as a total fashion, regards a design on their products as an important decision factor for buying the products.
      This design is created from constant research and efforts, not naturally. Strong legal protection for the design is required because the design, which is difficult to be created, is easy to be copied. Therefore, design protection law tightly protects an issued design: applied designs which is same and similar with publically-known, publically-used ones are denied due to lack of novelty. In this context, it is important legal issue to determine whether the compared designs are same or similar each other because this sameness or similarity is used when determining novelty of design, pre-application, expanded pre-application. Also, they are used when determining the scope of the issued design's right and protection.
      It is highly important to legal theory and solution for legal dispute to study on the criteria of design's sameness and similarity, which is the most important factor for design protection. In addition, more understanding for new cases is required in the legal system of design protection law and intellectual property law. Also, more leading cases, which do not harm legal stability and seek detailed plausibility, are needed to be settled.
      번역하기

      Modern society is product-oriented one. Various products that are manufactured and sold stimulate consumers' desire. Hence, the manufacturer tries to make products that are equipped with beautiful appearance as well as excellent quality and functions....

      Modern society is product-oriented one. Various products that are manufactured and sold stimulate consumers' desire. Hence, the manufacturer tries to make products that are equipped with beautiful appearance as well as excellent quality and functions. For consumers, who want to express their personalities through their products as a total fashion, regards a design on their products as an important decision factor for buying the products.
      This design is created from constant research and efforts, not naturally. Strong legal protection for the design is required because the design, which is difficult to be created, is easy to be copied. Therefore, design protection law tightly protects an issued design: applied designs which is same and similar with publically-known, publically-used ones are denied due to lack of novelty. In this context, it is important legal issue to determine whether the compared designs are same or similar each other because this sameness or similarity is used when determining novelty of design, pre-application, expanded pre-application. Also, they are used when determining the scope of the issued design's right and protection.
      It is highly important to legal theory and solution for legal dispute to study on the criteria of design's sameness and similarity, which is the most important factor for design protection. In addition, more understanding for new cases is required in the legal system of design protection law and intellectual property law. Also, more leading cases, which do not harm legal stability and seek detailed plausibility, are needed to be settled.

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • Ⅰ. 서론
      • Ⅱ. 디자인의 동일 또는 유사 여부에 관한 일반적인 판단기준
      • Ⅲ. 디자인의 동일 또는 유사 여부에 관한 유형적 고찰
      • Ⅳ. 결어
      • 참고문헌
      • Ⅰ. 서론
      • Ⅱ. 디자인의 동일 또는 유사 여부에 관한 일반적인 판단기준
      • Ⅲ. 디자인의 동일 또는 유사 여부에 관한 유형적 고찰
      • Ⅳ. 결어
      • 참고문헌
      • Abstract
      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 특허법원 지적재산소송실무연구회, "지적재산소송실무" 박영사 2010

      2 송영식, "지적소유권법" 육법사 2008

      3 오세중, "의장법․상표법" 한빛지적소유권센터 2002

      4 오영준, "물품의 기능을 확보하는 데 불가결한 형상의 의의 및 디자인의 유사여부 판단" 대법원 (65) :

      5 노태정, "디자인보호법" 세창출판사 2005

      6 유영선, "등록무효소송에서 기본적 또는 기능적 형태를 포함하고 있는 디자인의 유사성 판단기준" 한국지적재산권법제연구원 (7) : 2009

      1 특허법원 지적재산소송실무연구회, "지적재산소송실무" 박영사 2010

      2 송영식, "지적소유권법" 육법사 2008

      3 오세중, "의장법․상표법" 한빛지적소유권센터 2002

      4 오영준, "물품의 기능을 확보하는 데 불가결한 형상의 의의 및 디자인의 유사여부 판단" 대법원 (65) :

      5 노태정, "디자인보호법" 세창출판사 2005

      6 유영선, "등록무효소송에서 기본적 또는 기능적 형태를 포함하고 있는 디자인의 유사성 판단기준" 한국지적재산권법제연구원 (7) : 2009

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2016 평가 신규평가 신청대상 (신규평가)
      2013-04-01 등재 탈락(현장점검) (기타)
      2010-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2009-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2008-06-16 학술지명변경 외국어명 : 미등록 -> Creation & Rights KCI등재후보
      2008-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2006-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼