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.