# Food-waste disposer designs: why small differences did not change the overall impression Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10602 examines design similarity and ease of creation through the shape, proportions and details of a food-waste disposer. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1844 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Food-waste disposer designs: why small differences did not change the overall impression Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10602 examines design similarity and ease of creation through the shape, proportions and details of a food-waste disposer. Designs 2026.10.17 published IPLEX 6 min read The registration and the court’s decision On 25 June 2026, the Korean Patent Court decided case 2025Heo10602 concerning design registration No. 30-1290860. The application had been filed on 16 December 2024 and registered on 9 January 2025 for a food-waste disposer. The IPTAB had rejected the invalidity petition in case 2025Dang426 on 17 October 2025. The court revoked that decision, finding grounds for invalidity. This was a validity dispute, not a judgment establishing infringement by a particular seller. Evidence of the earlier design Additional prior-design evidence may be considered in an action reviewing the legality of an IPTAB decision unless special circumstances prevent it. Here, prior design 1 was also the same design as comparison design 2 before the IPTAB, so the comparison did not rest entirely on newly introduced material. A September 2023 product-release post and related reporting established public disclosure. Missing rear, left-side or bottom drawings did not prevent comparison where the essential shape could be understood from the available materials and ordinary experience. The visual features that mattered Both designs concerned the same type of appliance. The court considered perspective, front and top views: a tall body with a track-shaped cross-section, rounded ends joined by straight sides, smooth transitions and approximate width-to-length-to-height proportions of 1:2.2:1.7. A large front lid, a rear filter cover and a round control button near the upper centre of the front reinforced the common impression. In a restrained design of this kind, the outline, proportions and silhouette had particular visual importance. Registered design and prior design 1: perspective, front and top views Why the differences were insufficient Differences included curvature and a step, the orientation of slits, the filter handle, panel and hinge details, a recessed or projecting button, a vertical LED indicator and feet at the base. Even features visible during ordinary use did not produce a sufficiently different overall aesthetic impression. Nor did the fact that a track-shaped body was already known automatically make it visually unimportant. The shape still contributed to the impression of these designs, and alternative body forms were available. Appearance comparison of the registered design and prior design 1 The separate ease-of-creation analysis The court also considered whether the design could readily be created from prior designs 1 and 2. They concerned the same appliance and shared a minimalist approach, providing a reason to combine their features. Prior design 2 already showed relevant slit, handle and simplified top arrangements, a step, a recessed button and base supports. Minor rounding, changes around the handle and relocation of an LED from the side to below were treated as ordinary design modifications. This was an additional validity analysis, not merely a count of similarities. Registered design and prior designs 1–2: perspective and top views Practical lessons for design evidence A useful comparison explains what a user actually sees and how each difference affects the design as a whole. Listing numerous small changes does not, by itself, establish a different impression. Public availability and the disclosed shape should also be proved separately: dated release materials may establish when a design became known, while photographs and drawings show what was disclosed. The case illustrates both similarity and ease of creation under Korean design law. 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 registration and the court’s decision Evidence of the earlier design The visual features that mattered Why the differences were insufficient The separate ease-of-creation analysis Practical lessons for design evidence TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer When patent invalidity removes the basis for a scope-confirmation action ↗ Older How “Griptok” became a generic product name in Korea ↗ 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-1844 - 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-1844#case-1844-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1844#case-1844-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1844#case-1844-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1844#case-1844-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1844#case-1844-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1844#case-1844-en-5 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1845 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1843 - 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