# Model Numbers on Compatible Refills: When Is a Sign Used as a Trade Mark? Korean Patent Court decision 2025허10434 examines the role of ‘250 SERIES’ in its packaging and market context. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1769 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Model Numbers on Compatible Refills: When Is a Sign Used as a Trade Mark? Korean Patent Court decision 2025허10434 examines the role of ‘250 SERIES’ in its packaging and market context. Trademarks 2026.09.28 published IPLEX 8 min read The dispute and its procedural setting In its decision of 30 April 2026, the Korean Patent Court considered whether ‘250 SERIES’, used on continuous refuse-bag refills, fell within the scope of Korean trade mark registration 1359896 for ‘250’. The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board had answered yes in decision 2023당3227 of 16 May 2025. The refill seller challenged that decision, arguing that the number identified the compatible bin model, rather than the commercial origin of the refill. Registered 250 mark and the sign 250 SERIES Trade mark use comes before similarity A sign must function as an indication of origin before its use can fall within the registered mark’s scope in these proceedings. The court considered the relationship between sign and product, positioning and relative size, the mark’s reputation, the circumstances of use and the user’s intention. Identical numerals alone did not settle the question. The proprietor itself used M220, M250 and M280 as bin model names and placed the corresponding number beside a separate product name on refills. Evidence that ‘250’ independently identified commercial origin was insufficient. The proprietor’s placement of the registration symbol beside its product name, but not the number, was one contextual factor; it was not a rule that an unmarked registration loses protection. What the packaging communicated The seller’s wrapper prominently displayed a stylised BestGoods logo above a green division. The distinctive lettering included a thumbs-up form and a face motif. ‘250 SERIES’ appeared lower down, in black like the product information. Other refill suppliers likewise used model numbers to indicate compatibility. The listed capacities—14, 16, 20, 21 and 30 litres—referred to compatible bins, not a 250-litre bag. Consumers could not be expected to know that an M250 bin had a circumference of 70 centimetres, so the model number conveyed useful compatibility information. The outer box carried the seller’s own brand without ‘250 SERIES’. The proprietor’s MagicCan refill packaging and model numbers Placement of the BestGoods logo and 250 SERIES on the refill wrapper The court’s conclusion and its limits Taken together, these circumstances did not establish use of ‘250 SERIES’ as the refill’s trade mark. The court therefore set aside the Board’s decision. It did not invalidate the ‘250’ registration or grant a general permission to use another trader’s signs on compatible products. The ruling concerned the identified sign, goods and manner of use. Practical considerations A compatibility statement should be assessed alongside the seller’s own branding, the complete packaging and the sales presentation. Adding the word ‘compatible’ is not an automatic defence. Owners of numerical marks should preserve evidence showing how consumers perceive the number as an indication of origin. For either side, uncropped packaging, product listings and evidence of trading practice may be more informative than an isolated image of the disputed sign. The comparison figures retain the forms and labels shown in the Korean source. Read the Korean source This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances. Discuss this topic ↗ All articles Related service: Designs & trade marks ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗ ON THIS PAGE The dispute and its procedural setting Trade mark use comes before similarity What the packaging communicated The court’s conclusion and its limits Practical considerations TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer The Same Prior Art, a Different Rejection: The Applicant’s Opportunity to Respond ↗ Older Trademark Filing in Brazil: Portuguese Specifications, Examination and Registration ↗ Related insights Trademarks 2026.10.01 TikTok for confectionery: dilution can prevent registration in Korea Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10379 explains why different goods and later commercial success did not overcome the reputation and distinctiveness of TikTok. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.09.30 Can Fear of a Trade Mark Dispute Justify Non-Use? Korean Supreme Court decision 2024후10504 separates an intention to launch from actual use and objective obstacles beyond the owner’s control. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.09.29 An App Name: A Mark for Software or for the Service It Delivers? The 010PAY decision, 2025허10405, considers actual transactions, revenue and the proper subject of Korean trade mark scope proceedings. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/trademark - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/brunch-case-1769 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/trademark#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1769#case-1769-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1769#case-1769-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1769#case-1769-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1769#case-1769-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1769#case-1769-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1770 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1546667 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1782 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1782 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1771 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1771