# 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. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1833 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS 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. Designs 2026.10.15 published IPLEX 6 min read Registration remained in place On 10 April 2025, the Korean Patent Court dismissed the challenge in case 2024Heo13978 to dress design registration 1194176, filed on 15 November 2022 and registered on 2 December 2022. The IPTAB had rejected invalidation on 18 June 2024 in case 2023Dang2402. Earlier design 1 was a dress published online on 14 February 2022; designs 2 and 3 were blouses published on 19 August 2020 and 22 May 2021. The comparison numbers used in court were not identical to those in the administrative proceeding. This was a validity judgment, not a new registration achievement by IPLEX. Two distinct legal questions Article 33(1)(3) of Korea’s Design Protection Act addresses similarity to an earlier design; Article 33(2) asks whether an ordinary designer could easily create the design from known forms. Similarity requires observing the appearance as a whole, including known elements, rather than tallying isolated parts. In a crowded field such as women’s dresses, with many established forms and structural constraints, the range of similarity may be relatively narrow. The familiar combination of a white long-sleeved shirt, tube-top skirt, fitted waist and open collar did not resolve either question by itself. Overall comparison of the registered design and earlier design 1 The neckline, chest line and sleeves The registered design had a narrower front collar opening without a collar button and a divided back with a zipper, unlike the wider, buttoned front and continuous back of design 1. Its chest edge formed a shallow central dip and gentle line rather than a deep valley with steep arcs. The sleeve had a projecting folded shoulder, lengthwise inner pleats gathering in a Y at the wrist, and a short one-button cuff. Design 1 instead had a rounded, voluminous sleeve and a longer three-button cuff. These frequently observed, attention-catching areas together created a different overall aesthetic impression. Comparison of the neckline and tube-top chest edge Why borrowing blouse sleeves was insufficient Blouses 2 and 3 also had projecting shoulder folds, but their curved, bulging pleats remained visible beyond the outer sleeve line. The registered design kept a straighter outline, with inner pleats overlapping lengthwise and less visible from the front; wearing the garment accentuated the difference. Merely extending sleeve length did not account for the number, spacing and folding method. Nor was there a supported explanation for the collar change, and the blouses lacked the tube-top chest structure. The proposed sequence of selective changes and combinations was not shown to be a routine, low-creativity technique. Sleeve pleats, contours and appearance when worn Practical lessons from the judgment The court upheld the rejection of invalidation under both grounds. Clothing-design analysis should explain how identified differences affect the whole appearance and how, specifically, the proposed combination would be made. Side-by-side views and evidence of the garment as worn help connect details to the visual impression. A shared fashion concept does not automatically establish similarity, and a finding of dissimilarity does not by itself answer the separate easy-creation question. 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 Registration remained in place Two distinct legal questions The neckline, chest line and sleeves Why borrowing blouse sleeves was insufficient Practical lessons from the judgment TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Trade mark registration in Türkiye: filing, opposition and use ↗ Older Non-use cancellation: a place name added to a restaurant trade mark ↗ Related insights 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 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-1833 - 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-1833#case-1833-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1833#case-1833-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1833#case-1833-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1833#case-1833-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1833#case-1833-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/turkiye-trademark-filing-guide - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1832 - 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 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1823 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1823