The Seoul High Court recently issued a decision that has caught the attention of Korea’s food and beverage industry – and that is relevant to all CPG brands regarding unique packaging. At the heart of the case was Melona, a well-known melon-flavored ice cream bar, and its rival product Melonbar. The question before the court was whether Melona’s packaging design was distinctive enough to qualify for protection under Korea’s Unfair Competition Prevention Act (UCPA).

The court ultimately sided with Melona, finding that the overall look of its wrapper had become a distinctive brand asset. The decision underscores that in South Korea – as in the United States –  packaging is more than just a marketing tool; it can serve as a legally protectable form of intellectual property.

Case Background

Since its launch in 1992, Melona has held a strong position in Korea’s frozen dessert market. Over time, the wrapper has been updated, but several consistent features have remained since 2004:

• A green gradient background that signals the melon flavor
• The name “Melona” in bold black letters outlined in white, centered across the wrapper
• Illustrations of melons on one side and the ice cream bar on the other
• A yellow underline stripe with small descriptive text like “Melon Flavored Ice Bar”

Melonbar, the defendant’s product, entered the market in 2014 with a different look. But over the years, its packaging shifted closer to Melona’s design. Eventually, the similarities were significant enough that Melona filed suit, claiming the rival wrapper diluted its distinctiveness, caused consumer confusion, and unfairly benefited from Melona’s reputation.

The trial court initially dismissed the claims, but the High Court overturned that decision, fully recognizing Melona’s arguments.

How the Court Saw Distinctiveness

A key issue in the case was whether the design of Melona’s packaging could be considered distinctive. The lower court had reasoned that features such as the color green, fruit imagery, and rectangular layouts are common in the ice cream industry and therefore not protectable.

On appeal, the High Court took a broader view. It ruled that distinctiveness does not depend on individual elements in isolation but on the combined impression created by the design. Several points persuaded the court:

1. Consistency over time. Melona had used its distinctive wrapper for more than a decade, which strengthened consumer recognition.
2. Market strength. With over 15 billion bars sold since 2014, Melona’s market dominance supported the idea that the packaging had acquired secondary meaning.
3. Consumer evidence. Surveys showed that people could identify Melona’s wrapper even when the brand name was removed, while many confused Melonbar’s design for Melona’s.
4. Marketing investment. Years of advertising reinforced the wrapper as part of Melona’s identity.

Taken together, these factors convinced the court that the wrapper had become more than decoration. It functioned as a brand identifier in its own right.

The Role of the Brand Name

Melonbar argued that the name “Melona” was already so distinctive that consumers did not rely on the wrapper to identify the product. From this perspective, the packaging itself was not deserving of protection.

The High Court rejected that argument. Instead, it held that the brand name and the wrapper are part of a single commercial impression. The name strengthens the design, and the design enhances the name. For brand owners, this confirms that a well-known trademark does not cancel out the legal significance of packaging. Both elements can and often do work together.

Signs of Copying and Likelihood of Confusion

The court also took into account the way Melonbar’s wrapper evolved. Over the years, its design moved closer to Melona’s, which the judges saw as evidence of deliberate imitation.

The type of product also played a role in the analysis. Ice cream bars are inexpensive, quick purchases. Shoppers usually rely on the overall look of the wrapper rather than studying labels in detail. This reality increased the risk of confusion in the freezer aisle.

Survey results confirmed the risk. Many respondents correctly identified Melona’s wrapper without the brand name, but a significant number mistook Melonbar’s packaging for Melona’s when the name was hidden. The court found this evidence persuasive in ruling that Melonbar’s wrapper violated the UCPA.

Why the Decision Matters

The Melona case provides several lessons for businesses trying to protect their brand identity, in Korea and globally:

• Packaging can qualify as IP. Even when individual design elements are common in an industry, the overall presentation can be distinctive if used consistently over time.
• Consumer perception carries weight. Courts rely on real-world evidence, such as surveys, to determine how the public understands packaging.
• Copycats pose a real threat. Lookalike products can undermine years of brand investment, which makes proactive legal protection essential.
• Global impact is likely. As Korean food brands expand into international markets, decisions like this one will shape how companies think about packaging strategy and enforcement abroad.

Minx Law’s Insight

At Minx Law, we view this ruling in South Korea as an important reminder of the value of trade dress protection globally. Trade dress refers to the visual appearance of a product or its packaging when that appearance functions as a source identifier. Like a trademark or a patent, trade dress can provide powerful legal rights when enforced properly.

For businesses in sectors such as food, beverages, cosmetics, or any fast-moving consumer goods, investing in distinctive packaging is not just a design decision. It is part of a broader intellectual property strategy. Protecting that investment requires careful planning, consistent use, and sometimes litigation.

As competition increases and products move across borders, packaging will continue to play a larger role in protecting brand identity. Companies that overlook this aspect of IP risk losing control over how consumers perceive their products.

If your business is developing new packaging or defending established designs, consider how trade dress can strengthen your overall IP portfolio. The Melona case demonstrates that courts in Korea and other countries are willing to recognize the power of packaging, provided that businesses can show long-term consistency, consumer recognition, and evidence of confusion when challenged.

At Minx Law, we help clients turn these insights into actionable strategies to safeguard their brand equity.

‍