# Design invalidation: prove prior public disclosure before comparing similarity A Korean design case shows why dated disclosure evidence and proper submission of exhibits must precede a similarity argument. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1884 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Design invalidation: prove prior public disclosure before comparing similarity A Korean design case shows why dated disclosure evidence and proper submission of exhibits must precede a similarity argument. Designs & Trademarks 2026.10.27 published IPLEX 5 min read The dispute and its outcome In case 2025Heo10596, decided on 8 July 2026, the Korean Patent Court dismissed the challenge to an IPTAB decision refusing to invalidate design registration No. 0664160. The design was filed on 4 June 2012 and registered on 12 October 2012. The underlying decision was issued on 19 September 2025 in proceeding 2025Dang1205. The first question was whether the earlier design was public The claimant relied on a kiosk design associated with Company E, alleging similarity and ease of creation. Under Article 5(1) and (2) of the former Design Protection Act applicable to this filing, an earlier design first had to qualify as publicly known, publicly used, published or available through telecommunications before the filing date. The court found no evidence establishing that prerequisite and therefore did not proceed to compare the designs. This was a failure to establish the asserted prior disclosure. It was not a positive finding that the registered design was original in every respect, nor a ruling that no earlier design could ever exist. The reference to a kiosk concerned the alleged prior design. Pleading a fact does not itself submit the evidence The claimant received notice on 15 April 2026 but did not attend the first hearing on 10 June. Although the complaint and preparatory brief were treated as stated, the attached documents designated Exhibits 1–6 were not thereby deemed offered in evidence. On this record, the claimed disclosure remained unproved. The point is procedural as well as substantive: an allegation in a pleading and the proper submission of supporting exhibits are distinct steps. This decision does not mean that every absence automatically causes a loss or that all attachments to a complaint are ineffective. Build the disclosure record before the similarity case For an invalidation challenge, identify the precise earlier design, the channel through which it became public and a reliable date preceding the relevant filing. Catalogues, web records, sales materials and other dated documents may be useful, but their provenance and connection to the design still need to be shown. Prepare the evidence and its submission together with the legal argument. If prior public availability is not established, a detailed visual comparison cannot cure that gap. IPLEX assists with assessing the evidence and procedural steps required for Korean design disputes. 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 The dispute and its outcome The first question was whether the earlier design was public Pleading a fact does not itself submit the evidence Build the disclosure record before the similarity case TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer GBLA: reading long recommendation histories efficiently ↗ Older GreenBoxes: descriptive wording and proof of acquired distinctiveness ↗ 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-1884 - 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-1884#article-1884-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1884#article-1884-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1884#article-1884-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1884#article-1884-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/gbla-generative-retrieval - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1883 - 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