IP Newsletter | Winter 2014/15
	TRADEMARK & DESIGN
	Design Infringement Recognized Despite Dissimilar Details
	The Seoul Central District Court recently found infringement in a design infringement litigation involving cutting board cases (Case No. 2013gahap511881, decided on July 8, 2014), determining that minor differences between the registered and infringing designs did not outweigh the similarity of the designs, and granting an injunction as well as KRW 60 million (approximately USD 60,000) in damages to the plaintiff.
	Naturnic's Registered Design Olio's Design (Actual Product) (Actual Product)
	Naturnic Co., Ltd. is a Korean kitchenware company that created the cutting board case on the left side of the above table, which it registered as a design with the Korean Intellectual Property Office and subsequently began selling in November 2011. A competitor, Olio Co., Ltd., began selling a similar product (on the right side of the above table) in July 2012. Naturnic then filed a lawsuit against Olio seeking injunctive relief and damages. The court first noted that even old or functionally-driven design elements, such as the rectangular shape of the cutting board case and the opening at one end for inserting cutting boards, should be considered in a similarity determination as long as they produce an aesthetic impression on the consumer. The court then compared the two designs at issue and noted that they had (i) the same measurements and rectangular shape, (ii) similar openings on the right side, (iii) similar "window" portions in the front with rounded edges ( vs ), and (iv) similar sets of three water vents on the bottom of the case. On the other hand, the court discounted several design differences between the two cases. For example, although the court acknowledged that the bottom edges of the "windows" in the two cases were curved differently ( vs ), this difference was insufficient to alter the aesthetic impressions given by the cases. Further, while Olio's design had a second "window" in the back of the case (unlike Naturnic's design), the court reasoned that consumers purchasing the cases would generally first see them with at least one cutting board inserted in the case (obscuring the back of the case from view), and thus would not be able to distinguish the two cases based on that feature. The court also rejected Olio's validity challenge to Naturnic's registered design over a prior art cutting board case design , which the court determined was quite dissimilar to Naturnic's design due to the differences in their essential elements (e.g., lack of any "window" portion in the front of the case, the shape of the bottom stand, etc.). The court's holding expands the potential scope of similarity between two designs by focusing on the overall aesthetic impressions given by the registered design and the accused design. This should allow more protection for design owners against imitation products which incorporate minor differences into their designs while clearly trading off the design of the original product.
	Back to Main Page
	If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact:
	Sun-Young PARK sypark2@ip.kimchang.com Nayoung KIM nkim@ip.kimchang.com Hyeri KIM hrkim@ip.kimchang.com
	For more information, please visit our website: www.ip.kimchang.com