＜Osaka District Court＞ 2016 (Wa) 12791＞(November 6, 2018) “Lighting Equipment for Testing” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case)
(Conclusion) Defendant’s equipment 1 is similar to the registered design. (Design right owner won.) / Defendant’s design 2 is not Similar to the registered design.(Design right owner lost.)
(Defendant’s equipment 1)
When observing from the front or oblique front, a user does not recognize the existence of a screw hole.
Even when observing from the rear, a user only recognize it as a functional difference and does not recognize it as a difference in aesthetics.
(Defendant’s equipment 2)
The fact that the outer peripheral surface is a flat surface with a part of the arc cut off gives a strong visual impression.
The large taper on the edge of the front surface of the fin also gives a strong visual impression.
<Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)>
https://www.courts.go.jp/ip/eng/assets/ip/eng/chizai_en/chizai_en-pdf-2723.pdf
