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.
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.
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.