Journal of the Korean Society of Costume (복식)

The Korean Society of Costume (한국복식학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Legal Protection of Fashion Designs and its Possibility under the Korean Design Protection Act - Based on the Review of Cases Related to the Requirements for a Design Definition and Acquisition of Design Rights and the Judgment of Design Identity & Similarity -

패션디자인의 디자인보호법상 보호와 보호 가능성에 관한 고찰 - 디자인 성립 및 등록요건과 동일·유사 판단 기준 관련 판례 검토를 중심으로 -

  • 조경숙 (성균관대학교 예술대학 의상학과) ;
  • 정석원 (강&강 법률사무소)
  • Received : 2015.03.25
  • Accepted : 2015.12.21
  • Published : 2016.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper is aimed at intensively examining the scope of legal protection for fashion designs under the Design Protection Act of Korea. For this purpose, this looked into how the Act defines the concept of design, its requirements, and the prerequisites for acquiring design rights. The study also reviewed statutory interpretations over the judgment of the identity and similarity of designs. For more practical and substantial discussions, this research utilized cases and precedents, which had relevant legal principles. This study also figured out how both the requirements for a design definition - such as merchantability, configuration, visibility, and aesthetics - and the prerequisites for acquiring design rights - like industrial applicability, novelty, and creativity - are interpreted and utilized in actual circumstances. The authors expressed their opinions regarding the criteria of judging the identity and similarity of designs, based on a study of previous cases. Previous rulings show that aesthetics of the exterior design is used as the criteria for determining whether a design is same or similar. So, two designs, which have different specific details, are deemed same or similar, if both designs show similarity in the dominant elements. This is because both designs will produce similar aesthetic qualities. However, if the dominant elements of a design are part of the public domain, and the specific details characterize the design, the latter has to be evaluated in the process. This paper examined scope of legal protection for fashion designs using relevant precedents. The study may serve as academic materials that lead to the establishment of rightful ownership in creative activities.

Keywords

References

  1. Cha, S. (2010). A dispute aspect and a legal issue over the fashion design protection. Korean Journal of Industrial Property Rights [산업재산권], 32(0), 231-289.
  2. Cho, K. S. & Jo, J. S. (2014). Problems and improvements of the class B articles of clothing and personal belongings design classification under the Korean Design Protection Act. Journal of the Korean Society of Costume, 64(5), 76-90. https://doi.org/10.7233/jksc.2014.64.5.076
  3. Court of Korea, The court statistics monthly (2014, February 5). Retrieved from http://www.scourt.go.kr/portal/justicesta/JusticestaCodeAction.work?gubun_code=G01
  4. Design Protection Act (2014a). Article 1 [디자인보호법제1조]
  5. Design Protection Act (2014b). Article 2 Paragraph 6[디자인보호법 제2조 6항]
  6. Design Protection Act (2014c). Article 37 Subparagraph 4 [디자인보호법 제37조 4호]
  7. Design Protection Act (2014d). Article 34 [디자인보호법 제34조]
  8. Design Protection Act (2014e). Article 62 Subparagraph 2 [디자인보호법 제62조 2호]
  9. Design Protection Act (2014f). Article 220 [디자인보호법 제220조]
  10. Design Protection Act (2014g). Article 227 [디자인보호법 제227조]
  11. Design Protection Act (2014h). Article 2 Paragraph 1[디자인보호법 제2조 1항]
  12. Design Protection Act (2014i). Article 33 Subparagraph 1 [디자인보호법 제33조 1호]
  13. Design Protection Act (2014j). Article 33 Subparagraph 2 [디자인보호법 제33조 2호]
  14. Design Protection Act (2014k). Article 95 Subparagraph 3 [디자인보호법 제95조 3호]
  15. Design Protection Act (2014l). Article 36 [디자인보호법 제36조]
  16. Design Protection Act (2014m). Article 46 [디자인보호 법 제46조]
  17. Design Registration Enforcement Regulations (2016). Article 38 [디자인보호법 시행규칙: 시행 2016. 1. 1., 산업통상자원부령 제 173호, 2015. 12. 30., 일부개정]
  18. How long will the war against design copying last? [디자인카피와의 전쟁, 대체 언제까지 계속될 것인가] (2013, January 10). The Korea Economic Daily, Retrieved from http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=201301101454k
  19. Intellectual Property Tribunal Decision, August 10, 2011(2010 dang 2672) [특허심판원 2011. 8. 10. 2010당 2672 심결]
  20. Intellectual Property Tribunal Decision, February 24, 2011(2010 dang 2725) [특허심판원 2011. 2. 24. 자 2010당2725 심결]
  21. Intellectual Property Tribunal Decision, December 9, 2008(2008 dang 3760) [특허심판원 2008. 12. 9. 자 2008자3760 심결]
  22. Intellectual Property Tribunal Decision, September 28, 2007 (2006 dang 2894) [특허심판원 2007. 9. 28. 자2006당2894 심결]
  23. Jin, S. (2011). The distinctions of the common design notion between the design domain and the design protection domain. Journal of Korean Society of Design Science, 24(3), 251-260.
  24. Jin, S. T. (2013). A study on the framework for design similarity and creativity judgement. The Journal of Intellectual Property, 8(1), 41-44.
  25. Kim, H. & Park, C. (2011). Domestic design patent analysis of functional clothing. Journal of the Korean Society Clothing Industry, 13(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.5805/KSCI.2011.13.1.001
  26. Kim, W. (2009). Protection of intellectual property in fashion industry. Fashion Information and Technology, 6(0), 27-33.
  27. Kim, Y. (2004). The analysis of registration of design rights in Korean apparel industry-Design rights registered in apparel-. Journal of the Korean Society of Costume, 54(1), 125-139.
  28. Korean Intellectual Property Office, Classification of indu strial designs (2015a, February 2). Retrieved from http://www.kipo.go.kr/kpo/user.tdf;jsessionid=9863ca6b30d51bdeae0202c64b75ad91f3731109c8e4.e34RahyTbxmRb40LaxyPahaRahqLe0?a=user.html.HtmlApp&c=8028&catmenu=m06_03_05
  29. Korean Intellectual Property Office, Manual for design review [디자인심사기준] (2015b, October 1). Retrieved from http://www.kipo.go.kr/kpo/user.tdf?a=user.html.HtmlApp&c=30732&catmenu=m06_03_04
  30. Korean Intellectual Property Office, Statistics in intellectual property rights (2014a, October 13). Retrieved from http://www.kipo.go.kr/kpo/user.tdf?a=user.html.HtmlApp&c=3041&catmenu=m02_05_01
  31. Korean Intellectual Property Office, Statistics in intellectual property rights (2014b, October 13). Retrieved from http://www.kipo.go.kr/kpo/user.tdf?a=user.html.HtmlApp&c=3043&catmenu=m02_05_01_02
  32. Lee, S. H. & Gong, K. S. (2010). Core of industrial design protection act (7th ed.). Seoul, Republic of Korea: Hanbit Intellectual Property Training Center CO. LTD.
  33. Lee, S. Y. (2013). A study on the legal protection of fashion designs (Unpublished master's thesis). Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  34. Ourdoorwear design copy [디자인 베껴 만들고도 으쓱이는 브랜드 아웃도어...소비자 마음도 훔치려나] (2014, December 22). The Kukmin Daily, Retrieved from http://news.kmib.co.kr/article/view.asp?arcid=0922889491&code=14190000
  35. Patent Court Decision, March 21, 2013 (2012 heo 7895)[특허법원 2013. 3. 21. 선고 2012허7895 판결]
  36. Patent Court Decision, October 28, 2011 (2011 heo 7980)[특허법원 2011. 10. 28. 선고 2011허7980 판결]
  37. Patent Court Decision, April 9, 2010 (2009 heo 9341)[특허법원 2010. 4. 9. 선고 2009허9341 판결]
  38. Patent Court Decision, March 28, 2008 (2007 heo 11500)[특허법원 2008. 3. 28. 선고 2007허11500 판결]
  39. Supreme Court Decision, April 13, 2012 (2011 hu 3469)[대법원 2012. 4. 13. 선고 2011후3469 판결]
  40. Supreme Court Decision, January 30, 2009 (2007 hu4830) [대법원 2009. 1. 30. 선고 2007후4830 판결]
  41. Supreme Court Decision, October 24, 2007 (2005 hu3307) [대법원 2007. 10. 25. 선고 2005후3307 판결]
  42. Supreme Court Decision, August 30, 2004 (2003 hu 762)[대법원 2004. 8. 30. 선고 2003후762 판결]
  43. Supreme Court Decision, June 29, 2001 (2000 hu 3388)[대법원 2001. 6. 29. 선고 2000후3388 판결]
  44. Yang, J. Y. (2006). Study on the problem of non-examination registration system of industrial design (Unpublished master's thesis). Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  45. Yook, S. (2010). Legal protection of fashion design. The Journal of Intellectual Property, 5(2), 81-109. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpp205