Similarity of design (Infringement case)
(Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.)
All of the essential parts, i.e., (1) the ratio of the rattle part to the water reservoir part is approximately 7 to 3 in the resistered design, whereas it is approximately 8 to 2 in the Defendant’s Ventilation opening; (2) the designs have a vertical rattle consisting of 10 rattle piers, whereas the accused design has a horizontal rattle consisting of 7 rattle piers; and (3) the water reservoir part, which is in the shape of a semicircle (bow), is formed on the same plane as the rest of the front end of the front cylindrical part in the designs. (3) The water reservoir is formed on the same plane as other parts of the front end surface of the front cylindrical part in the designs in question, while it is formed slightly protruding forward from other parts of the front end surface of the front cylindrical part in the defendant’s design…. The common points do not outweigh the differences in aesthetics.
<Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)>