# Canopy designs: similarity depends on the overall impression Korea’s Patent Court in 2024Heo15578 weighs known features, proportions and the defined comparison design in a canopy scope-of-rights dispute. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1861 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Canopy designs: similarity depends on the overall impression Korea’s Patent Court in 2024Heo15578 weighs known features, proportions and the defined comparison design in a canopy scope-of-rights dispute. Designs & Trademarks 2026.10.21 published IPLEX 6 min read 1. The design and the outcome The dispute concerned Korean registered design No. 940180 for a roadside canopy used by pedestrians, including at crossings. The petitioners sought a negative confirmation that their specified smart-canopy design fell outside its scope. On October 28, 2024, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the petition in case 2024Dang842. On May 22, 2025, the Patent Court set that decision aside in 2024Heo15578. It found that the specified comparison design produced a different overall aesthetic impression and lay outside the registration’s scope. This was a scope determination, not invalidation of the registered design. Perspective views of the registered and specified comparison designs 2. Common structure is only the starting point Both designs had a rectangular post, a central cantilever attached at one end, sloping awnings on both sides, edge guides and two-stage folding arms. However, prior designs already disclosed the basic arrangement and several details. Those known features deserved reduced weight. The court still compared each design as a whole. It did not simply erase known elements from the comparison. Nor is a functional feature automatically unimportant: where alternative shapes can perform the function, its visual form may remain significant. 3. Proportion and connections changed the impression The registered design had a broad central plate, with awnings approximately as wide as the central support. The comparison design used a much narrower, elongated support and awnings nearly three times its width. The former appeared soft, stable and centred on the support; the latter appeared slender and dominated by its awnings. From the front, gently curved sides resembling a shallow, broad dish contrasted with steep straight sides resembling a bowl. The comparison design’s rectangular heat-dissipating element, solar-panel structure and angular forms contributed a more complex, rigid impression. Arm attachment positions, the underside and the post-to-support connection reinforced the difference across the front, top and side views. Front and top views of the two canopy designs Side views showing the central support and post connections 4. A folding canopy must still be assessed when open The possibility of folding did not cancel the visual differences in the fully extended state. That state showed the overall form and relative proportions which materially influenced the observer’s aesthetic impression. Accordingly, the assessment could not stop at the fact that both products folded or shared a general operating structure. The court considered how their actual proportions and component arrangement appeared together. 5. The defined comparison design controls this proceeding A negative scope-of-rights proceeding compares the design specified in the petition with the design represented in the registration drawings. The proprietor also submitted photographs said to depict the products actually made. Even if those products were closer to the registration than the specified comparison design, their status would require a separate scope proceeding or infringement action. Photographs could not replace the subject matter defined for this case; the judgment is not blanket clearance for every marketed canopy. 6. Prepare a comparison across the relevant views A useful assessment identifies the registered drawings, the precise design under review and prior designs before comparing proportions, connections and visual balance across perspective, front, top and side views. Changing a width ratio or adding a solar panel does not itself guarantee that a design falls outside protection. In this Korean case, the combined differences altered the overall impression; the court’s reasoning must be applied to the actual design being assessed. 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. The design and the outcome 2. Common structure is only the starting point 3. Proportion and connections changed the impression 4. A folding canopy must still be assessed when open 5. The defined comparison design controls this proceeding 6. Prepare a comparison across the relevant views TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Samsung’s AI audio editing: preparing controls before separation finishes ↗ Older Milk packaging and the limits of unfair competition protection ↗ 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-1861 - 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-1861#article-1861-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1861#article-1861-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1861#article-1861-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1861#article-1861-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1861#article-1861-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1861#article-1861-en-5 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/samsung-ai-audio-classification-separation - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1860 - 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