Similarity of design (Infringement case)
(Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.)
*This judgment indicated the logic how to identify the “essential part of the design” in a registered design right.
Considering nature, purpose, application, function, and usage of the dental implant, the essential part of the registered design is the part that attracts the attention of the user (dentist).
They are not similar in the identified essential part.
<Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)>