# Gas-burner designs: familiar structure and distinctive openings A Korean scope-confirmation judgment explains how prior designs, normal use and visible patterns affect overall visual similarity. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1840 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Gas-burner designs: familiar structure and distinctive openings A Korean scope-confirmation judgment explains how prior designs, normal use and visible patterns affect overall visual similarity. Designs 2026.10.16 published IPLEX 6 min read A favorable tribunal decision was overturned On 9 July 2026, the fifth division of Korea’s Patent Court annulled the scope-confirmation decision in case 2025Heo10606. Registered design 899917, for a portable gas burner, had been filed on 25 August 2016 and registered on 20 March 2017. The right holder had obtained a favorable decision on 30 September 2025 in proceeding 2024Dang1907. The manufacturer challenged that decision, and the court held that the comparison design was dissimilar and outside the registered design’s scope. This was not an invalidation of the registration. Perspective and front views of the registered and comparison burners Common structure needs to be placed in context Both burners had three tiers—a burner head, side ring and support—with a circular, slightly domed head, a gas connection and an operating ring. The support was wider at the top. But several similarities were already disclosed in earlier designs: the three-tier structure appeared in prior designs 1 and 4, and a circular head appeared in all four cited designs. Familiar features receive less weight when assessing overall aesthetic impression; simply counting shared components would overstate their significance. Burner head, side ring, support and connection parts What users can see before and during operation The court considered how the product was normally used. Users look at the burner head when connecting a gas container or checking ignition and flame intensity. Once a cooking vessel is in place, the head and vessel-coupling ring become obscured, while the side ring, support and operating ring remain visible. The concealed coupling ring and the internal frame on the underside therefore carried less weight than features that readily attract attention. Known three-tier structures in the prior designs The patterns and openings created meaningful differences The registered head was plain, whereas the comparison head carried a regular pattern of linked diamonds. Its side ring used regularly arranged openings resembling the four Korean flag trigrams, rather than the registered design’s irregular pebble-like openings. The registered support combined rounded rectangular upper openings with curved lower grooves; the comparison used trapezoidal openings around the middle and no lower grooves. Its operating ring was also shorter, and the word “snowline” appeared in white at the bottom. Normal use with a cooking vessel and gas container Overall impression, not an isolated ornament The openings and lower grooves were among the registered design’s stated creative features. Their differences could not be dismissed as minor decoration. Similar width proportions were an overall structural feature and did not outweigh the distinctive visible details. Taken together, the registered design conveyed an irregular, dynamic impression, while the comparison design appeared regular, static and stable. Those different aesthetic impressions supported the finding of dissimilarity. Differences in head patterns and side and support openings A practical framework for comparison A useful design comparison brings together the registration drawings, relevant prior designs, photographs of normal use and a clear explanation of the features that draw consumer attention. It must then return to the impression of the whole. The judgment does not mean that adding lettering or shortening one ring will always avoid a design right. The outcome depended on the combined visible differences and the reduced significance of the familiar common features in these particular burners. 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 A favorable tribunal decision was overturned Common structure needs to be placed in context What users can see before and during operation The patterns and openings created meaningful differences Overall impression, not an isolated ornament A practical framework for comparison TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Patent equivalents: amendments and a divided transfer mechanism ↗ Older Does a later plant-variety name invalidate an earlier trade mark? ↗ Related insights Designs 2026.10.20 Design scope and the freedom to use prior designs A Korean floodlight-bracket decision explains when an easily derived design falls outside a registered design’s scope. ↗ Read article Designs 2026.10.19 Design creativity and combinations of familiar components A Korean book-holder decision examines coil count, bends, materials and supporting tips under the ease-of-creation test. ↗ Read article Designs 2026.10.19 Coupang design complaint: resolving a sales suspension IPLEX resolved a suspension involving acupressure sandals by connecting pre-filing sales records, customer photographs and product history under Korean design law. ↗ 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-1840 - 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-1840#case-1840-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1840#case-1840-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1840#case-1840-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1840#case-1840-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1840#case-1840-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1840#case-1840-en-5 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1842 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1839 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1855 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1855 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1852 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1852 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848