# Partial designs: why the rear view matters Korean Patent Court case 2026Heo10018 examines the exposed rear strip and bands of a seedling marker, and the evidence needed to establish easy creation. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1847 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Partial designs: why the rear view matters Korean Patent Court case 2026Heo10018 examines the exposed rear strip and bands of a seedling marker, and the evidence needed to establish easy creation. Designs 2026.10.18 published IPLEX 6 min read A decision overturning design invalidation On 16 July 2026, the Korean Patent Court revoked the IPTAB decision in case 2025Dang301, which had invalidated design registration No. 1046545 for a seedling marker. The court proceeding was case 2026Heo10018. The design was filed on 30 July 2019 and registered on 14 February 2020. The marker identifies the location and type of planted seedlings. The dispute concerned whether an ordinarily skilled designer could readily create its registered appearance from earlier designs. It was a validity dispute, rather than a finding that a competing product infringed. Define the protected part before making comparisons Only the upper portion shown in solid lines was the subject of this partial-design registration. Broken-line portions were outside the part claimed. Accordingly, the court compared the corresponding upper portion of prior design 1, without relying on its buried lower end or wedge. Prior design 1 used paint, coloured tape or ribbon around a long shaft. Both designs shared this basic structure. The issue was whether the particular appearance of the registered upper portion followed readily from that starting point. Perspective, front and rear views of the registered upper portion The rear view could not be disregarded Article 33(2) of the Korean Design Protection Act addresses designs that an ordinarily skilled designer could easily create from previously known designs or familiar forms. Identifying differences is only part of the inquiry: the evidence must also explain why those differences would be easy to produce. The challenger sought to concentrate on the front and left-side views. The court disagreed. The rear of a marker installed in a planting site is visible in ordinary use and can affect its aesthetic impression. Features depicted in the registered drawings could not simply be removed from the easy-creation assessment. Comparison of the registered upper portion with prior design 1 An exposed strip and two bands changed the impression At the rear, a vertical strip of bamboo remained visible between the ends of the fabric wrapping. The contrast divided the surface vertically and emphasised the marker’s long axis. Prior design 1 had no corresponding exposed strip. Knotless loop-shaped bands at the upper and lower edges of the wrapping also created proportion and visual divisions. Prior design 1 instead presented an uninterrupted surface. The court therefore rejected the characterisation of these differences as merely functional modifications lacking aesthetic value. Why the proposed combinations were unpersuasive Prior design 3 concerned a marine aquaculture buoy with a projecting flag, an upper ring and a lower wire. Its outward-projecting structure differed from a marker whose wrapping formed a unified appearance with the shaft. The court found insufficient visual connection or design motivation to extract its ring and add it to prior design 1, which could even use paint alone. Prior designs 4–7 showed tree insulation or insect-trapping wraps tied with cords or bands; designs 4 and 5 included knots. Those materials did not establish that the particular knotless upper and lower bands, together with the exposed rear strip, were commonplace or readily created in this design field. Comparison with prior designs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 The court did not decide every alleged difference The challenger also relied on the owner’s 156 seedling-marker design applications. The number of filings did not itself establish a low level of creativity. With a relatively simple article, an apparently small modification can materially alter aesthetic value. The exposed strip and loop-shaped bands were sufficient to defeat the asserted easy-creation ground on the evidence presented. The court therefore did not go on to decide the other differences concerning the space above the wrapping and concentric circles in the top view. It did not independently endorse all four differences. Preparing a persuasive partial-design comparison Start with the solid and broken lines to identify the registered subject matter. Then explain how front, rear and side features divide the surfaces, establish proportions and affect the overall impression. A familiar basic structure does not dispose of the analysis. The party seeking invalidation bears the burden of proving the asserted ground. Finding rings or ties on other objects is not enough by itself: the evidence should explain why their combination would naturally yield the particular exposed strip and band arrangement at issue. These are practical lessons from this Korean judgment. 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 decision overturning design invalidation Define the protected part before making comparisons The rear view could not be disregarded An exposed strip and two bands changed the impression Why the proposed combinations were unpersuasive The court did not decide every alleged difference Preparing a persuasive partial-design comparison TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Coupang design complaint: resolving a sales suspension ↗ Older Three-dimensional marks and functional product shapes ↗ 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-1847 - 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-1847#case-1847-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1847#case-1847-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1847#case-1847-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1847#case-1847-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1847#case-1847-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1847#case-1847-en-5 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1847#case-1847-en-6 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1846 - 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