# Milk packaging and the limits of unfair competition protection Korea’s Patent Court examines recognition of packaging, descriptive brand families and the limits of the misappropriation provision in case 2025Na10205. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1860 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Milk packaging and the limits of unfair competition protection Korea’s Patent Court examines recognition of packaging, descriptive brand families and the limits of the misappropriation provision in case 2025Na10205. Designs & Trademarks 2026.10.21 published IPLEX 6 min read 1. What the appeal concerned In its January 22, 2026 judgment in 2025Na10205, Korea’s Patent Court dismissed an appeal concerning milk packaging and a Korean product-name series meaning “in the morning + product.” The claimant sought an injunction, destruction of goods and damages over the defendant’s “milk in the morning” sign and green-and-white cartons. On appeal, the claimant withdrew the trademark infringement claims and the confusion and dilution claims concerning the signs. The remaining issues were misappropriation of the alleged brand-family achievement and unfair competition involving the packaging. The judgment did not invalidate a trademark. 2. A descriptive expression does not confer ownership of a whole family For juice, soy milk and similar foods, the shared expression immediately suggests a product consumed in the morning. Distinctiveness of particular registrations arose from additional distinctive elements or acquired distinctiveness; it did not automatically extend to the abstract family format. Other food and beverage traders also used the expression. Apart from the juice product, the evidence did not establish lengthy use or substantial sales across the series; soy-milk sales had declined. The court found insufficient proof that the shared format itself was an achievement produced by substantial investment or effort. 3. Identify the packaging feature said to indicate origin Packaging can become a product indication where consistent use or advertising makes its distinctive characteristics strongly associated with a particular source. The claimant relied on a green roof, a white upper carton and a green lower area, alternatively combined with a red circular logo. The question was whether this claimed combination had become a widely recognized source identifier. A visual resemblance between two cartons cannot substitute for evidence establishing that threshold. Four claimant cartons and three defendant cartons 4. History and market context must match the claimed appearance The claimant’s cartons differed in green hue, area and shape, the proportion of white, and the presence, size and position of the red logo. The main current carton had been used only since 2021, about a year before the defendant’s launch. It added a milk-crown motif, changed the red-logo presentation and removed the sun motif. A long brand history therefore did not prove long, consistent use of this particular packaging. Green-and-white milk cartons and red circular logos were also common in the market. The evidence did not establish the claimed features as a widely recognized product indication under Article 2(1)(ga). Changes to the claimant’s principal milk carton from 2009 to 2022 Other milk products using white and green or red circular logos 5. The general provision is not an automatic alternative monopoly The packaging dilution claim also failed. The general misappropriation provision, Article 2(1)(pa), requires an identifiable achievement and an economic interest deserving protection, assessed in its commercial context. Common elements available for public use do not become exclusive merely because confusion or dilution protection is unavailable. The court rejected the claimant’s attempt to secure protection for the asserted packaging features on that alternative basis. 6. Practical implications for evidence Separate a specific logo, a dated packaging version and the common format of a product family when defining the protected subject matter. Link dated photographs to advertising, sales and actual use of the particular combination claimed, while examining third-party market use. These are practical evidence considerations, not a fixed checklist or permission to copy another trader’s marks. The decision concerns the claims and evidence in this Korean dispute; similarity, recognition and legally protectable achievement remain distinct questions. The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the source material. 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 1. What the appeal concerned 2. A descriptive expression does not confer ownership of a whole family 3. Identify the packaging feature said to indicate origin 4. History and market context must match the claimed appearance 5. The general provision is not an automatic alternative monopoly 6. Practical implications for evidence TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Canopy designs: similarity depends on the overall impression ↗ Older Duplicate messages and inventive step ↗ Related insights Designs & Trademarks 2026.10.29 Related designs: can a different top surface leave the same overall impression? Korean Patent Court case 2026Heo10106 considers whether changes to a food-waste processor’s controls and cover outweighed its shared proportions and silhouette. ↗ Read article Designs & Trademarks 2026.10.29 METAVIEW and metaVu: why pronunciation mattered in Korea Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10544 shows why visual differences between software brands did not overcome identical or highly similar pronunciation. ↗ Read article Designs & Trademarks 2026.10.28 When a design registration is invalidated: loss of legal interest in a scope-of-rights action Korea’s Patent Court dismissed case 2024Heo15950 after the design registration was finally invalidated, while ordering the defendant to bear the litigation costs. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/trademark - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/brunch-case-1860 - 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-1860#article-1860-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1860#article-1860-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1860#article-1860-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1860#article-1860-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1860#article-1860-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1860#article-1860-en-5 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1861 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1859 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1894 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1894 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1893 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1893 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1888 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1888