Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Known art, a narrow similarity range and overall aesthetic feel in design scope
Supreme Court, Jan. 23, 2025, 2024Hu11026 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 권리범위확인(디)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In deciding whether a design for a food storage container falls outside the scope of a registered design right that includes the shape and form of known art, must the range of similarity be read narrowly, and do differences in the remaining characteristic parts that alter the overall aesthetic feel put the design outside that scope?
Holding
It must. A design right cannot extend to the known parts of an application, so the known parts are evaluated low, and where a product has long been in common use, is simple, has seen many varied designs, and cannot be structurally altered to any great extent, the range of similarity is relatively narrow. Here the registered design and the design at issue differed in the shape of the serrated protrusions at the inlet, in the protruding upper and lower parts of the body, and in the bottom face, and those differences were likely to bring a difference in the overall aesthetic sense of the two designs, so the design at issue did not fall within the scope of the registered design right; the Patent Court's contrary finding misapprehended the law on similarity.
Points at issue, verbatim
등록디자인과 확인대상디자인의 형상의 차이는 양 디자인의 전체적인 심미감에 차이를 가져온다고 볼 수 있으므로, 확인대상디자인은 등록디자인과 동일·유사하지 아니하여 등록디자인의 권리범위에 속하지 않는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
The difference in shape between the registered design and the design subject to confirmation may be regarded as bringing about a difference in the overall aesthetic feeling of the two designs, and therefore the design subject to confirmation is neither identical nor similar to the registered design and does not fall within the scope of rights of the registered design, and yet a case in which the determination of the court below was held to be erroneous for misapprehension of legal principles by taking a contrary view
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 특허법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
등록디자인에서 공지 부분을 제외한 나머지 특징적인 부분과 이에 대비되는 디자인의 해당 부분이 서로 유사하지 않다면 대비되는 디자인은 등록디자인의 권리범위에 속한다고 할 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
If the remaining distinctive part of the registered design, excluding the well-known part, and the corresponding part of the design to be compared are not similar to each other, the design to be compared cannot be regarded as falling within the scope of rights of the registered design
Factors
- 공지의 형상과 모양을 포함하고 있는 등록디자인권의 권리범위의 판단 기준
- 옛날부터 흔히 사용되었고 단순하며 여러 디자인이 다양하게 창작되었던 물품 또는 구조적으로 그 디자인을 크게 변화시킬 수 없는 물품을 대상으로 한 디자인의 유사 범위는 비교적 좁게 보아야 하는지 여부(적극)
- 등록디자인과 확인대상디자인의 형상의 차이는 양 디자인의 전체적인 심미감에 차이를 가져온다고 볼 수 있으므로
Unofficial English translation
• The criterion for determining the scope of rights of a registered design right that includes a well-known shape and form
• Whether the scope of similarity of a design should be regarded as relatively narrow where the article is one that has long been commonly used and is simple and for which various designs have been diversely created, or one the design of which cannot be greatly changed structurally (affirmative)
• The difference in shape between the registered design and the design subject to confirmation may be regarded as bringing about a difference in the overall aesthetic feeling of the two designs, and therefore
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2004. 8. 30. 선고 2003후762 판결(공2004하, 1612)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu762 decided August 30, 2004 (Gong 2004 Ha, 1612)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1997. 10. 14. 선고 96후2418 판결, 대법원 2004. 8. 30. 선고 2003후762 판결(공2004하, 1612), 대법원 2012. 4. 13. 선고 2011후3469 판결, 대법원 2013. 4. 11. 선고 2012후3794 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Who assesses, and from what viewpoint, whether a difference in shape brings a difference in the overall aesthetic sense of the two designs?
The remand judgment of the Patent Court on the same two designs will show how the remaining characteristic parts are weighed once the known parts are set aside. Any amendment to Article 92 or Article 122 of the Design Protection Act, or a later Supreme Court decision varying the narrow range of similarity for products long in common use, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary records the legal standard as a rule statement, while the independent reads the same passage as applied to the specific design comparison.
등록디자인과 확인대상디자인의 형상의 차이는 양 디자인의 전체적인 심미감에 차이를 가져온다고 볼 수 있으므로Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Who assesses, and from what viewpoint, whether a difference in shape brings a difference in the overall aesthetic sense of the two designs?” vs Independent “How much variation in the distinctive features of another food-storage container would suffice to produce a different overall aesthetic impression?”
The primary asks from whose viewpoint aesthetic difference is judged, while the independent asks how much variation in distinctive features is enough. These are different questions.
등록디자인과 확인대상디자인의 형상의 차이는 양 디자인의 전체적인 심미감에 차이를 가져온다고 볼 수 있으므로, 확인대상디자인은 등록디자인과 동일·유사하지 아니하여 등록디자인의 권리범위에 속하지 않는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Patent Court, in its judgment of 29 August 2024 (2024Heo12128), held that the design at issue was similar to the registered design for a food storage container and therefore fell within the scope of the registered design right, and rejected Company A's claim for a negative declaration of the scope of the right against B.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the similarities the Patent Court relied on, the three-part cylindrical body and the serrated protrusions at the inlet, appeared as they were in the prior designs and so had to be evaluated low, and that the food storage container was a product for which the range of similarity must be read narrowly. Comparing the remaining characteristic parts, it found differences in the number and shape of the serrated protrusions, in the shape of the protruding upper and lower parts, and in the bottom face, which were likely to bring a difference in the overall aesthetic sense, and it reversed the judgment for a misapprehension of the law that affected the outcome, remanding the case to the Patent Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the registered design and the design at issue share no known parts, or in which the shared parts are not found in the prior designs, since the Court evaluated those parts low because the prior designs showed them.
- A design for a product that has not long been in common use, is not simple, has not seen many varied designs, or can be structurally altered to a significant extent, so that the narrow range of similarity does not apply.
- A case in which the differences in the remaining characteristic parts do not bring any difference in the overall aesthetic sense of the two designs, since that was the ground for finding no similarity here.
Record verification notes
Collect the prior designs the court below cited and set each alleged similarity against them, because the Court cut down every similarity that appeared in a prior design. Then compare the two designs only on the characteristic parts that remain, shape by shape, and ask whether the whole aesthetic impression differs. Confirm which version of the Design Protection Act applies, since Articles 92 and 122 of that Act were the provisions the decision referred to.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 공지의 형상과 모양을 포함하고 있는 등록디자인권의 권리범위의 판단 기준 / 옛날부터 흔히 사용되었고 단순하며 여러 디자인이 다양하게 창작되었던 물품 또는 구조적으로 그 디자인을 크게 변화시킬 수 없는 물품을 대상으로 한 디자인의 유사 범위는 비교적 좁게 보아야 하는지 여부(적극) [2] 갑 주식회사가 명칭이 "식품보관용 용기"인 등록디자인", "의 디자인권자인 을을 상대로 확인대상디자인", "이 등록디자인의 권리범위에 속하지 않는다고 주장하면서 소극적 권리범위확인심판을 청구한 사안에서, 등록디자인과 확인대상디자인의 형상의 차이는 양 디자인의 전체적인 심미감에 차이를 가져온다고 볼 수 있으므로, 확인대상디자인은 등록디자인과 동일·유사하지 아니하여 등록디자인의 권리범위에 속하지 않는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The criterion for determining the scope of rights of a registered design right that includes a well-known shape and form / Whether the scope of similarity of a design should be regarded as relatively narrow where the article is one that has long been commonly used and is simple and for which various designs have been diversely created, or one the design of which cannot be greatly changed structurally (affirmative) [2] In a case where Company A filed a claim for a negative confirmation of the scope of rights, asserting against B, the design right holder of the registered design named "Food Storage Container", that the design subject to confirmation", "does not fall within the scope of rights of the registered design", it is a case in which the determination of the court below was held to be erroneous for misapprehension of legal principles, even though the difference in shape between the registered design and the design subject to confirmation may be regarded as bringing about a difference in the overall aesthetic feeling of the two designs, and therefore the design subject to confirmation is neither identical nor similar to the registered design and does not fall within the scope of rights of the registered design.
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 특허법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 디자인보호법 제92조, 제122조 [2] 디자인보호법 제92조, 제122조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger