# 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. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1830 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS 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. Designs 2026.10.14 published IPLEX 6 min read The application and the earlier tile On 17 April 2025, the Korean Patent Court dismissed the claim in case 2024Heo71. Application 30-2022-27784[M004], filed on 11 July 2022, concerned a glazed clay or ceramic tile for walls and floors. The cited design, registration 648665, had been published on 20 June 2012. Both depicted flying birds with a surrounding “THE FLIGHT OF BIIKJO” lettering pattern. The earlier design contained one bird motif. The application placed twelve quarter-sized motifs around a large central motif, removed a lattice border and an apparent creator’s name, and modified the lettering. The examiner refused the application for lack of novelty; the trial board upheld refusal on similarity and ease-of-creation grounds in decision 2023Won1933 of 24 July 2024. Two tests address different issues Article 33(1)(3) of Korea’s Design Protection Act addresses similarity to a previously disclosed design. The court compared the appearance as a whole, paying attention to prominent features and the aesthetic impression in trade and use. Article 33(2) asks whether a designer of ordinary knowledge in the field could readily create the design from the relevant known forms or their combination. A different impression does not necessarily answer that second question. Here the front face was the most revealing part of the tile. Although the bird motif was shared, the twelve surrounding motifs made the applied-for design more complex and ornate. Repeating complete tiles in a grid also produced a significantly different overall impression. The placement attracted consumers’ attention, while the fine lettering changes and removal of the lattice border and name were comparatively minor. The designs were therefore not similar for the cited Article 33(1)(3) ground. Front and perspective views of the applied-for and earlier tile designs Why the new arrangement was still easy to create The court reached a different conclusion on creative difficulty. Reducing the existing bird motif and lettering border proportionally and repeating them within a tile was an ordinary design technique. The particular arrangement of twelve quarter-sized motifs around the centre did not demonstrate a special creative contribution. Previously disclosed tile arrangements with smaller or differently sized squares around a central square provided supporting context. Removing relatively minor border and name elements, making slight changes to letter shapes, and reversing shading while retaining the basic colour arrangement were also changes an ordinary designer could readily attempt. Considered together, they did not overcome Article 33(2). An earlier tile showing squares arranged around a central square Refusal survived a correction to the reasoning Although the trial board’s similarity reasoning was partly inappropriate, refusal remained justified because the design was readily creatable. The court dismissed the request to revoke the board’s decision. This was a refusal case concerning a specific application, not an infringement ruling or invalidation of an existing registered design. Nor did the finding of dissimilarity establish compliance with every other novelty or registration requirement. Prepare evidence of both appearance and creative contribution An applicant should explain how the overall composition and visually prominent features differ, including the impression produced when tiles are installed together. Separately, identify what goes beyond customary reduction, repetition, deletion or combination in the field. Time spent drawing or greater visual richness does not alone answer an ease-of-creation objection. The ruling does not exclude all repeating-pattern designs from registration. Its conclusion depended on the shared motif, this particular arrangement and the limited changes. Compare the concrete forms, their combination and ordinary design practice, and prepare distinct arguments on visual difference and the required level of creation. 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 application and the earlier tile Two tests address different issues Why the new arrangement was still easy to create Refusal survived a correction to the reasoning Prepare evidence of both appearance and creative contribution TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Huawei Pangu Weather: linking forecast models across time intervals ↗ Older Bankruptcy does not automatically excuse trade mark non-use ↗ 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 2026.10.13 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 Designs 2026.10.12 Design similarity: functional shapes still contribute to the overall impression Korean Supreme Court case 2025Hu10235 explains how known features, alternative functional shapes and a freely practicable design defence affect comparison of mask designs. ↗ 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-1830 - 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-1830#case-1830-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1830#case-1830-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1830#case-1830-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1830#case-1830-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1830#case-1830-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/huawei-pangu-weather-time-interval-models - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1829 - 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-1826 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1826 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1823 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1823