# Custom moulds and indirect infringement of Korean design rights The Patent Court explains exclusive use, presumed negligence and a supplier’s liability for moulds used to make infringing containers. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1802 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Custom moulds and indirect infringement of Korean design rights The Patent Court explains exclusive use, presumed negligence and a supplier’s liability for moulds used to make infringing containers. Designs 2026.10.06 published IPLEX 7 min read The supplier’s appeal On 22 May 2025, Korea’s Patent Court dismissed a mould supplier’s appeal in case 2024Na11051. The first-instance judgment of 5 July 2024, case 2022Gahap506157, had upheld the claim against the supplier and co-defendants C and D. C had ordered the mould and used it to manufacture containers for health supplements; the claimant held a design for an ampoule packaging container. The supplier argued that it had merely followed supplied drawings, did not know about the registered design, received only its manufacturing fee and did not share in sales of the containers. Those circumstances did not displace the findings concerning the mould’s purpose and the supplier’s duty of care. An article used exclusively for production Article 114 of the Korean Design Protection Act treats specified commercial dealings in articles used exclusively to manufacture products embodying a registered or similar design as infringement. The containers shared the dominant three-dimensional body and upper-handle features and conveyed the same overall aesthetic impression; their purposes and functions were also similar. A scope-confirmation decision concerning the container had become final. The custom mould had no other apparent economic or commercial use. It was made and supplied for payment by a business engaged in mould manufacture and injection production. The conclusion therefore concerned a dedicated production tool, not a rule that every custom mould or ordinary multipurpose component infringes. Why negligence was not rebutted The rebuttable presumption in Article 116(1) also applies to indirect infringement. A supplier must substantiate circumstances justifying ignorance of the right or a reasonable belief that the resulting design falls outside its scope. A bare statement of lack of knowledge is insufficient. Correspondence showed that C had supplied a sample and requested dots be added because of the resemblance. The supplier advertised specialised container-design and mould services, including in material dated 4 March 2019. No adequate effort to identify relevant rights or produce a non-infringing container was established. A customer’s assurance could not replace that examination. Joint liability and manufacturing records The objectively connected conduct of the supplier, C and D supported joint tort liability. A smaller role or lower profit did not reduce the supplier’s liability to the claimant. The upheld award was KRW 30 million jointly with C and D, plus statutory delay interest at 12% annually from 4 February 2022. The alternative unfair-competition claim was not separately decided. Manufacturers should retain drawings and samples, records of proposed changes, rights searches and the reasoning supporting any non-infringement assessment. Determine whether tooling has genuine alternative commercial uses and record who supplied the design. The judgment turns on this mould’s exclusive purpose and the demonstrated warning signs, rather than imposing identical liability on all commissioned manufacturing. The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the facts and the court’s reasoning. 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 supplier’s appeal An article used exclusively for production Why negligence was not rebutted Joint liability and manufacturing records TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer MAD-RAG: preserving visual evidence when retrieved text distracts a model ↗ Older KAHI: dissimilar goods can still create misleading trade mark associations ↗ Related insights Designs 2026.10.15 Dress designs: overall appearance and the limits of easy creation Korean Patent Court case 2024Heo13978 distinguishes design similarity from easy creation by combining earlier clothing designs. ↗ Read article Designs 2026.10.14 A different-looking tile design can still be refused Korean Patent Court case 2024Heo71 separates overall visual impression from whether a design is easy to create. ↗ Read article Designs 2026.10.13 Design drawings, adjustable products and the scope of protection Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10374 explains why an adjustable funeral-garment ornament did not cover every possible configuration. ↗ 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-1802 - 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-1802#case-1802-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1802#case-1802-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1802#case-1802-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1802#case-1802-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/mad-rag-visual-attention-distraction - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1801 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1833 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1833 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1830 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1830 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1826 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1826