# Hairband Design Validity: Explaining the Visual Effect of the Differences Korean Patent Court decision 2025허10530 distinguishes routine changes from features requiring a meaningful design contribution. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1773 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Hairband Design Validity: Explaining the Visual Effect of the Differences Korean Patent Court decision 2025허10530 distinguishes routine changes from features requiring a meaningful design contribution. Designs 2026.09.29 published IPLEX 7 min read The invalidity challenge The Korean Patent Court’s decision of 9 April 2026 concerned hairband design registration 1221797, filed on 24 March 2022 and registered on 23 June 2023. The design combined side-hair pressing plates, recesses for the ears and a support passing around the back of the head. The owner challenged Board decision 2024당3608 of 29 July 2025, which had invalidated the registration. The issue under Article 33(2) of Korea’s Design Protection Act was whether a designer of ordinary skill could readily create the design from the cited prior designs. Comparison of the registered design with prior design 1 Some differences were routine The court identified common structures and five groups of differences, but did not give each difference equal weight. Longer pressing plates and deeper ear recesses served a functional purpose and were substantially available in another cited design. An oval rather than circular plan shape was not decisive either: the support followed the head and could bend during use. Those differences alone did not establish a sufficient visual contribution. The features that mattered The acute angle between plate and support produced a sharper impression than the obtuse or approximately right-angle connections in the cited designs. The support widened towards the rear, first steeply and then more gradually, while its upper boundary remained horizontal and its lower boundary formed a flowing curve. The prior wire-like or constant-width supports did not readily yield that appearance. Regular rectangular perforations also created a crisp impression distinct from a dense mesh. Coordinating the shape and arrangement of those openings called for more than a low-level alteration. Comparison of prior designs 1, 2 and 3 The overall appearance and the result The rear support remained significant even though it was less prominent in frontal advertising or partly concealed when worn. It occupied a substantial part of the design and could be observed from the side and rear during purchase and use. Considering the connection angle, support contour and perforation pattern together, the court set aside the invalidity decision. This was a validity dispute on the grounds advanced, not an infringement ruling, and it does not establish that any small difference will preserve registration. Presenting a design case A persuasive comparison explains how angles, curvature, changing widths and repeated patterns combine to create an overall visual impression. It should distinguish functional adjustments from aesthetic choices and address whether the cited forms could readily produce the combination. Filing drawings and dispute exhibits should include the views in which the claimed visual contribution is actually apparent. 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 invalidity challenge Some differences were routine The features that mattered The overall appearance and the result Presenting a design case TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer The Same Cleaning Function Does Not Necessarily Establish Patent Equivalence ↗ Older An App Name: A Mark for Software or for the Service It Delivers? ↗ Related insights Designs 2026.10.01 Design similarity in Korea: a concealed end face can still matter A railing-pipe dispute illustrates the importance of appearances during sale and installation, prior designs and functional features in assessing overall visual impression. ↗ Read article Designs 2026.09.30 Food-Container Designs: Giving Proper Weight to Features Already Known Korean Supreme Court decision 2024후11026 assesses design scope through prior designs and the overall impression of the remaining features. ↗ Read article Designs 2026.09.07 Partial Examination of Designs: A Route to Faster Protection Design shapes a product's first impression and influences purchasing decisions. In fast-moving sectors such as fashion and household goods, obtaining protection promptly can be particularly important. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/design - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/brunch-case-1773 - 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-1773#case-1773-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1773#case-1773-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1773#case-1773-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1773#case-1773-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1773#case-1773-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1775 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1771 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1783 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1783 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1777 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1777 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1533342 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1533342