Similarity of design (Infringement case)
(Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.)
Although the registered design and Defendant’s Hair dryer has common pattern in the shape of the shade portion, the essential part of the registered design is not limited to the shape of the shade portion, and the difference in the impression brought about by other differences is large.
Furthermore, even if looking at the concrete shape of the shade portion, the registered design gives a more angular impression in a substantially rectangular shape, whereas Defendant’s Hair dryer gives a more rounded impression in a substantially “oval shape” shape, giving a different impression.
*This judgement incudes another issue related to Unfair Competition Law.
<Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)>