[Edaily Reporter Sung Gha-hyun ] A court has ruled that #LotteChilsungBeverage and an advertising agency must pay 39 million won in damages to a designer for manufacturing and selling products featuring designs similar to those created by the independent designer.

On the 5th, Judge Kim Ji-young of Civil Division 215 at the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in part in a lawsuit for damages filed by independent designer A against LotteChilsungBeverage and advertising agency B.

In December 2022, LotteChilsungBeverage commissioned Company B to operate a pop-up store for the advertising and promotion of “Milkis Zero” in preparation for the “Milkis Cloud House” pop-up store scheduled for May 2023.

Agency B subsequently contacted Mr. A, expressing interest in manufacturing pop-up-exclusive products based on his designs, but did not actually place an order for the products.

After reviewing various products, including Mr. A’s, LotteChilsungBeverage decided to produce similar products exclusively for the pop-up store. The company displayed these products at the pop-up store and sold 531 units.

Mr. A argued that LotteChilsungBeverage and Company B intentionally manufactured, displayed, and sold products with identical or similar designs, thereby infringing on his registered design rights, and claimed they should pay 50 million won in damages plus interest for delay.

In contrast, LotteChilsungBeverage and Company B countered that, apart from the publicly known shape, the registered design and the pop-up products were not similar. Furthermore, they argued that Mr. A’s design was identical or similar to a prior design disclosed before the application was filed, and thus lacked novelty; consequently, they contended that the registration was invalid.

However, Judge Kim ruled in Mr. A’s favor.

Judge Kim stated, “The goods covered by Mr. A’s registered design and the defendants’ products are identical or similar as storage containers,” adding, “When comparing the overall appearance of the product designs, it is reasonable to conclude that their overall aesthetic appeal is similar.” He further noted, “The products of LotteChilsungBeverage and Company B are identical or similar to the goods covered by Mr. A’s registered design, and since the designs are similar, they fall within the scope of protection of the registered design.”

The judge ruled, “It is reasonable to conclude that LotteChilsungBeverage and Company B intentionally infringed Mr. A’s registered design rights,” and determined that “LotteChilsungBeverage and Company B are jointly liable to compensate Mr. A for the damages he suffered as a result of the infringement of his registered design rights.”