# When a splash-guard design is too easy to create A Korean design-invalidity case examines rib spacing, corner curvature and supporting gussets against an earlier silicone splash guard. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1865 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS When a splash-guard design is too easy to create A Korean design-invalidity case examines rib spacing, corner curvature and supporting gussets against an earlier silicone splash guard. Designs & Trademarks 2026.10.22 published IPLEX 7 min read Invalidity of a silicone splash guard In 2024Heo14728, decided on 22 May 2025, the Korean Patent Court dismissed the owners’ action and maintained the invalidity decision 2024Dang417 of 26 August 2024. Design 1223393 was filed on 17 October 2022 and registered on 5 July 2023. Earlier design 1128630 was filed on 1 September 2020 and registered on 15 September 2021. Article 33(2) of the Korean Design Protection Act was the decisive ground. Shared appearance and three differences Both designs had a base and an upright panel, a surrounding border with rounded corners, and alternating vertical ribs and grooves. The later design had approximately 15 stripes instead of 30, different lower-corner curvature and supporting gussets between the panel and base. Identifying differences was only the beginning of the creativity analysis. Front, plan and side views of the registered and earlier designs Spacing and curvature Changing the spacing and number of repeated stripes, or adjusting the radius of a rounded border, was an ordinary design technique available without particular difficulty. Considered as a whole, those differences did not create a distinctive aesthetic value compared with the earlier design. A support feature in its functional context The gussets supported the upright silicone panel. The earlier design already achieved support through denser ribs and a thicker lower portion. Adding sloping silicone reinforcement was a familiar commercial or functional modification; similar forms appeared in known products. A gently curved, two-stage slope remained a variation on that supporting structure. Comparison of splash-guard supporting gussets Alternative shapes do not establish creativity The owners pointed to other possible reinforcement shapes. The court did not consider the mere existence of alternatives sufficient to show that the selected form was difficult for an ordinary designer to create. With the existing ribs maintained, a sloped support was a natural way to strengthen the panel. The conclusion does not exclude every functional design from protection. Prepare evidence of the overall visual contribution The registration was invalidated for ease of creation, without needing to decide the remaining arguments. This was not an infringement judgment. For application or invalidity work, explain how the selected configuration produces a new overall visual impression and preserve the design process; counting altered details or asserting a useful function alone may be insufficient. 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 Invalidity of a silicone splash guard Shared appearance and three differences Spacing and curvature A support feature in its functional context Alternative shapes do not establish creativity Prepare evidence of the overall visual contribution TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer DFlare: widening the information path to a speculative drafter ↗ Older Trademark distinctiveness: description or suggestion? ↗ 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-1865 - 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-1865#article-1865-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1865#article-1865-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1865#article-1865-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1865#article-1865-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1865#article-1865-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1865#article-1865-en-5 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/dflare-block-diffusion-drafting - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1864 - 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