# 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. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1777 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS 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. Designs 2026.09.30 published IPLEX 6 min read A scope dispute, not a validity challenge The Korean Supreme Court’s decision of 23 January 2025 concerned negative scope-confirmation proceedings for a food-storage container. Both the Board and the Patent Court had found the compared design within the registered design’s scope. The Supreme Court reversed Patent Court decision 2024허12128 of 29 August 2024 and remanded. The issue was the relationship between two designs, not cancellation of the registration itself. Body, neck and base of the registered and compared containers The shared features and the prior designs Both containers were cylindrical, with upper and lower projecting portions and a recessed vertical middle wall. Their rounded edges and relative section lengths were similar. But those features were already present in prior designs 6, 8, 9 and 10. Teeth arranged below part of the mouth were also known from prior designs 1 to 4. Registration of a design incorporating known forms does not extend an exclusive right to those known features themselves. Their similarity therefore deserved less weight. Body shapes in prior designs 6, 8, 9 and 10 Neck shapes in prior designs 1, 2, 3 and 4 The differences that changed the overall impression The registered design had five triangular teeth, whereas the compared design had four trapezoidal teeth. The registered body’s upper projection was rounded and its lower projection narrowed downwards; the compared design’s projecting sections were vertical. The registered bottom was flat, while the centre of the compared bottom rose in a rounded form. The court found that these differences affected the overall aesthetic impression. Food containers were also commonplace articles with extensive design variation and structural constraints, supporting a relatively narrow range of similarity. The Supreme Court’s conclusion The compared design was neither identical nor similar to the registered design and therefore fell outside its scope. The lower court had misapplied the principles of design similarity. Reversal and remand did not invalidate the registration, and the reasoning does not mean that any isolated minor difference will always avoid a registered design. The significance of the differences followed from the known elements, the nature of the article and the overall appearance. Building the comparison A useful design review places the two products alongside relevant prior designs, identifies which common features were already known and explains the visual contribution of the remaining differences. Mouth details, teeth, body contours and the base should be examined together. When preparing a filing, ensure that the drawings show the features intended to distinguish the design in an established product field. 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 A scope dispute, not a validity challenge The shared features and the prior designs The differences that changed the overall impression The Supreme Court’s conclusion Building the comparison TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Trade mark protection in the UAE: filing routes, timing and practical requirements ↗ Older Can Fear of a Trade Mark Dispute Justify Non-Use? ↗ 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 2026.09.29 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. ↗ 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-1777 - 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-1777#case-1777-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1777#case-1777-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1777#case-1777-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1777#case-1777-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1777#case-1777-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/uae-trademark-filing-guide - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776 - 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-1773 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1773 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1533342 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1533342