자동차 대체부품 디자인권 제한과 WTO TRIPs의 양립 가능성

정민정 동아대학교 법학연구소 2022 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.36

Manufacturers of finished cars currently register design rights for most of their maintenance parts. As a result, the automobile parts market has an exclusive distribution structure centered on OEM parts of finished car manufacturers, and the burden of parts costs on consumers continues to increase. In general, the design of alternative parts has a strong meaning as an indispensable aspect in securing the point of accurately executing the functions of the goods rather than aesthetics. In this situation, a bill has been proposed in the National Assembly that partially restricts the protection of design rights for alternative parts. In order for such restrictions on the effectiveness of design rights to be consistent with international norms, however, they must pass the three-step review of Article 26 (2) of the WTO TRIPs Agreement, an exception to the protection of design rights. Since there have been no WTO dispute settlement cases applying this clause so far, in this article, we have thus reviewed other exceptions that stipulate a three-step review method (Article 13 on copyright, Article 17 on trademarks, and Article 20 on patents) and examined three WTO cases applying each of these three provisions (US—Section 110(5) Copyright Act, EC—Trademarks and Geographical Indications, and Canada—Pharmaceutical Patents). According to the WTO panel’s interpretation of these three cases, restrictions on the design rights of alternative parts for automobiles are likely to fail to pass the three-step review of the WTO TRIPs Article 26 (2). However, the current interpretation of the WTO panel’s three-step review is considered to have undesirable results for society as a whole, and as an alternative, interpretations that compare rights holders, users, and social interests are being proposed. According to this alternative WTO interpretation theory, the limitation of the right to design alternative parts for automobiles can meet the requirements of Article 26 (2) of the WTO TRIPs. Restrictions on design rights for alternative parts of automobiles do not limit the entire design rights of design rights holders for all automobile parts. The limitations mentioned herein are applicable only to those that allow consumers to use automobile repair parts manufactured by small- and medium-sized parts makers other than design rights holders for repair purposes. This can be seen as an essential and appropriate limitation for the automobile industry. All things considered, according to an alternative interpretation that compares the interests of design rights holders and users, restrictions on design rights for alternative parts of automobiles may generally pass through three stages of screening, resulting in exceptions to design rights protection. 현재 완성차 제작사는 대부분의 정비용 부품에 대해 디자인권을 등록하고 있다. 그 결과 자동차 부품시장은 완성차 제작사의 OEM 부품을 중심으로 독점적 유통구조가 형성되어 소비자의 부품 비용 부담이 증가하고 있다. 대체부품의 디자인은 일반적으로 심미성보다는 물품의 기능을 확보하는 데 불가결한 형상이라는 의미가 강하다. 이에 국회에서는 대체부품의 디자인권 보호를 일정 부분 제한하는 내용의 법률안이 제안되고 있다. 하지만 이와 같은 디자인권 효력 제한이 국제규범과 합치하기 위해서는 디자인권 보호의 예외조항인 WTO TRIPs 협정 제26조제2항의 3단계 심사를 통과해야 한다. 그런데 아직 동조항을 적용한 WTO 분쟁해결사건은 없기 때문에 이 글에서는 동조항과 마찬가지로 3단계 심사에 대해 규정하고 있는 다른 예외조항(저작권에 관한 제13조, 상표에 관한 제17조, 특허에 관한 제20조)을 검토하고, 이 세 조항을 각각 적용한 세 개의 WTO 사건(US – Section 110(5) Copyright Act, EC – Trademarks and Geographical Indications, Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents)을 살펴보았다. 이들 세 건에 대한 WTO 패널의 해석론에 따르면 자동차 대체부품 디자인권 제한은 WTO TRIPs 제26조제2항의 3단계 심사를 통과하지 못할 가능성이 높다. 한편 현재 WTO 패널의 3단계 심사에 대한 해석이 사회 전체적으로 바람직하지 않은 결과를 가져온다고 보고 그 대안으로 권리자와 사용자 및 사회 전체적 이익을 비교형량하는 해석론이 제안되고 있다. 이 같은 WTO 대안적 해석론에 따르면 자동차 대체부품 디자인권 제한은 WTO TRIPs 제26조제2항의 요건을 충족할 수 있다. 자동차 대체부품 디자인권 제한은 모든 자동차 부품에 대한 디자인 권리자의 디자인권을 제한하는 것이 아니다. 디자인 권리자가 아닌 다른 중소 부품업체가 수리 부품을 제조하고, 소비자가 이를 수리 목적으로 사용할 수 있도록 하는 데 한정된다. 이는 자동차 산업 분야에 꼭 필요하고 적합한 제한으로 볼 수 있다. 디자인 권리자와 사용자 등의 이익을 비교형량하는 대안적 해석론에 따르면 자동차 대체부품 디자인권 제한은 대체로 3단계 심사를 통과하여 디자인권 보호의 예외가 인정될 수 있다.

부분디자인의 디자인권리보호와 권리가치 확대에 미치는 영향과 시사점

정상문(Jeong, Sang Moon) 한국디자인문화학회 2017 한국디자인문화학회지 Vol.23 No.4

지식재산권의 분쟁에 있어서 디자인권의 보호에 대한 관심이 증대하고 있는 가운데, 현재까지 이어지고 있는 애플과 삼성의 지식재산권의 분쟁은 디자인권과 특허기술을 포함한 복합적인 분쟁이라는 점에서 기존의 지식재산권분쟁에서 주로 다루어지던 특허기술의 분쟁과는 차이점을 보이 있다. 아울러 이번 분쟁만큼 디자인특허침해로 인한 법적인 권리와 배상액수의 규모에 대해 국제적으로 비중 있게 다루어진 경우도 흔치않은 사건이었다. 본 연구에서는 애플과 삼성에 의해 현재까지 국내 · 외에서 동시다발적으로 진행되었던 제품디자인에서의 디자인권을 포함하여, 패션제품에서의 디자인권 분쟁사례와 판례 및 주요 국가별 디자인관련 비교법적 고찰을 통하여, 다른 산업재산권에서는 존재하지 않는 부분디자인제도라는 디자인만이 가지는 특성을 고려하여 디자인보호법상의 디자인권리에 대한 확장가능성을 검토해 보았다는 점에서 그 의의가 있다고 하겠다. 아직도 디자인의 복제에 대한 업계와 사회의 불감증이 팽배한 현실에서 디자인권리보호의 확대가능성을 검토해 보고자 한다. 본 연구는 디자인에서 지식재산권의 중요성이 높아지는 상황을 고려하여 향후 발생할 수 있는 디자인권리분쟁에 대해 선제적이며, 전략적인 방어수단으로서 디자인개발 초기부터 디자인권리보호 및 방어차원에서의 활용이 가능할 수 있도록 각 국가별 제도의 특성 및 제도의 적극적인 활용을 필요로 한다. As the interest for design rights protection on IPR related disputes increases, the IPR related dispute between Apple and Samsung, which is continuing to this day, distinguishes itself from other IPR related disputes, which cover patent technology, in a way that it is a complex dispute that includes design rights and patent technologies. Moreover, this is a rare case which substantially and internationally covers the legal rights and amount of compensation caused by the infringement of design rights. This research has a significance in a way that it has examined the expandability of design rights on Design Protection Act, considering the system of granting design rights for part of an article, which is the unique characteristic of design that no other industrial property rights don’t have, through the comparative consideration of design system of major countries and cases and precedents of design right disputes in fashion products including design rights dispute on product design simultaneously and internationally conducted by Apple and Samsung. This research will like to examine the expandability of design right protection in a reality which society and business world are still insensible to the duplication of designs. This research is in need of characteristics of each country’s system and the active usage of them, which can be used as the anticipative, strategic protection method against future design rights dispute to be used at the beginning of the design development on the design right protection and defense method, considering the importance of IPR in the field of design.

한국 의류산업의 의장(디자인) 등록 추세와 의장제도에 관한 연구

김용주(Kim Yong Ju) 한국복식학회 2004 服飾 Vol.54 No.1

The present study was to analyze the trend of registration of design rights in apparel products and tc point out problems of current protection law to design. The research data was total 1,850 design rights in apparel that have been registered to the Korean Patent and Trademark Office from the first design registered in March 1. 1963 through those registered in April 24. 2003. All design rights were analyzed by the year, by the type of product, and by the type of applicant. And also design rights registered under the revised design registration system(without examination) were analyzed by the trait. The results of the study were as follows: (1) Sweater & polo shirts, underpants. and the Korean traditional dress were three major single categories registered in apparel: (2) 54.3% of total design rights in apparel was registered since the legal system of design rights has been revised in March 1, 1998: (3) Registration by individual applicant were 71.7% of total: ( 4 ) About 60% of total design rights were for aesthetic, but in some categories such as vest, brassiere, undershirts, designs for function were more frequently registered than others. And total 68 design rights for the symbol of the organization or uniform, were registered in upper outerwear and pants: (5) As problems of the current legal protection system for designs, the term of design (expressed in Korean). double registration of similar designs. malicious intention to register other`s trademark as his/her own design. The current legal system for design rights were more used for the product that has relatively long life cycle. And the revised law has been effective in encouraging the registration of design rights. However, the current design law still has some problems to be revised to prevent design rights or trademark infringement.

지적재산권법 체제 하에서 디자인의 전략적 보호 방안

김도경 ( Kim¸ Do-kyung ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2021 法學硏究 Vol.29 No.3

전세계적으로 디자인이 경제 및 기업의 성패에 미치는 영향이 커지고 있으며 대중 및 소비자 사이에서도 핵심적인 부분이 되었기 때문에 관련 산업이 경쟁력을 갖기 위해서는 그 효용성과 기능적 요소뿐 아니라 외관과 장식 디자인까지 고려하는 것이 필수적이다. 혁신적 신기술의 시대에 제품 개발 및 기술 진보는 더욱 빠른 속도로 성장하고 있어 현대 소비문화에서 “디자인이야말로 특정 제품을 다른 제품과 차별화시키는 유일한 것”이라고 해도 과언이 아닐 것이다. 한국디자인진흥원의 ‘2020 디자인산업통계조사 총괄보고서’에 따르면 2019년 디자인의 경제적 가치는 128조원으로 추정되었으나 향후 기술의 발전에 힘입어 디자인의 가치는 더욱 증대될 것이다. 또한 고부가 가치의 디자인일수록 모방은 성행할 것이기 때문에 기업인, 디자이너 등이 기술혁신에 대한 투자를 보호하지 않는 경우, 디자인 등과 같은 성과물의 법적 보호 부재로 인해 적자 및 투자를 적절히 회수하지 못할 위험이 발생할 수 있다. 이러한 이유로 디자인의 전략적 보호를 위해 지적재산권법이 어떻게 활용될 수 있는지 고찰할 필요가 있다. 기존 지적재산권법 체제는 디자인(제품 디자인, 브랜드 디자인, 기술 디자인 등)과 관련하여 디자인보호법, 저작권법 및 상표법의 세 가지 유형이 존재한다. 따라서 디자인의 경우, 지적재산권법에 따라 여러 유형의 보호를 받을 수 있다. 예컨대, 창작적 디자인의 경우 별도의 등록 없이도 저작권이 발생하고, 추후 상품으로 개발하여 디자인보호법상 공업상 이용가능성, 신규성, 창작성의 요건을 충족한다면 디자인권 등록도 가능하다. 물론 개인이 창작한 디자인이라면 대부분 저작권법상 보호만으로 충분할 것이지만 제품 디자인, 산업 디자인 등이라면 법적 권리를 명확히 하기 위해 특허청에 디자인권으로 등록해서 보호받는 것이 필요하다. 또한 저작권은 무방식주의에 따라 창작성의 요건만 갖추면 권리가 발생하지만, 디자인권으로도 등록되어 있다면 저작권 분쟁에서도 증명책임이 전환된다는 이점이 있다. 나아가 유명 및 저명한 정도에 이르러 식별력을 갖추게 되면 상표권으로 등록되어 보호받을 수 있게 된다. 디자인보호법상 보호기간이 20년이라는 점을 고려하여 디자인 개발 초기 단계에는 디자인권으로 등록하고, 어느 정도 식별력을 갖추게 되면 10년마다 갱신에 의해 반영구적 독점권인 상표로 등록하는 방안도 유용하게 활용될 수 있다. 그러나 이와 같이 디자인에 대하여 중첩적인 지적재산권법에 의한 보호가 발생하는 경우, 특정 유형의 법에 의한 보호기간이 만료되었을 때 별도의 또 다른 유형의 법에 의한 독점권이 존속되는 것에 대한 우려가 존재할 수 있다. 예컨대, 디자권의 보호기간이 만료되는 즉시 누구나 디자인보호법상 보호의 객체였던 디자인을 자유롭게 이용할 수 있으나, 디자인권 보호가 만료 시점에 입체적 형상의 상표나 트레이드 드레스로도 보호되었다면, 경쟁사의 해당 디자인 사용은 상표법상 입체상표 또는 부정경쟁방지법상 트레이드 드레스 침해가 성립될 것이다. 실제로 디자인에 대한 이러한 중접적인 법적 보호는 동시에 또는 순차적으로 발생하게 된다. 실제로 지적재산권의 권리자는 디자인이 식별력을 갖춘 경우, 디자인의 법적 보호를 위해 세 가지 유형의 각기 다른 별개의 지적재산권법 모두를 유용하게 활용할 수 있다. 즉, 창작적 디자인의 초기 개발 단계에서는 저작권 또는 디자인권에 의한 법적 보호방식을 취하고, 이후 시간이 지남에 따라 자타상품 식별 및 출처표시로서 2차적 의미를 획득하게 되면 상표권으로 등록하여 반영구적으로 독점권을 획득할 수 있다. 결론적으로 디자인에 대하여 중첩되는 지적재산권법상 보호가 존재한다는 것은 의심의 여지가 없다. 이처럼 고부가가치를 창출할 수 있는 디자인에 대하여 중첩적인 지적재산권에 보호를 활용할 수 있게 된다면 디자인 개발자에게 지적재산권법에 의한 구제수단을 확보하는데 유용한 보다 전략적인 법적 보호 기반을 제공하게 될 것이다. Since design has a growing impact on the success or failure of the economy and companies worldwide, and has become a key part of the public and consumers, it is essential to consider not only its utility and functional factors but also its appearance and decorative design in order to be competitive. In the age of innovative new technologies, product development and technological progress are growing at a faster pace, so it is no exaggeration to say that “design is the only thing that differentiates one product from another” in modern consumer culture. According to the Korea Institute of Design Promotion’s “2020 Korea Design Statistical Data”, the economic value of design in 2019 was estimated at 128 trillion KRW, but the value of design will be further increased thanks to future technology development. In addition, if entrepreneurs, designers, etc. do not protect investment in innovation, the lack of legal protection of designs, may pose a risk of loss and failing to properly recover investments. For this reason, it is necessary to consider how intellectual property laws can be used to protect the strategic protection of designs. In the existing intellectual property law systems, there are three types of design protection laws, copyright laws, and trademark laws in relation to design (product design, brand design, technology design, etc.). Therefore, in the case of design, various types of protection can be obtained under the Intellectual Property Law. For example, in the case of creative design, copyrights arises without registration, and design rights can be registered if they are developed as products and meet the requirements of industrial availability, novelty, and creativity under the Design Protection Act. Of course, most designs created by individuals will be sufficient under copyright law, but product design and industrial design need to be registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as design rights to clarify legal rights. In addition, a right arises only if the requirements for creativity are met, but if it is also registered as a design right, it has the advantage that the burden of proof is switched even in a copyright dispute. Furthermore, if it reaches a level of fame and prominence, it can be registered as a trademark and protected. Considering that the protection period under the Design Protection Act is 20 years, it can also be useful to register as a design right in the initial stages of design development, and to register as a semi-permanent monopoly trademark rights by renewal every 10 years. However, if such overlapping intellectual property law protection arises for a design, there may be concerns about the existence of a monopoly under another type of law when the protection period under a particular type of law expires. For example, if design rights were protected by a three-dimensional shape mark or trade dress at the expiration of the design rights protection period, competitors’ use of the design would violate the trade dress law. Indeed, this overlapping legal protection of the design occurs simultaneously or sequentially. Indeed, intellectual property rights holders can use all three different types of separate intellectual property laws to legally protect the design if the design is distinctive. That is, in the early stages of development of creative design, legal protection by copyright or design rights, and after that, secondary meaning as distinctiveness and source indicator of goods can be registered as trademarks and acquired semi-permanently. Consequently, there is no doubt that overlapping intellectual property law protections exist for designs. The use of overlapping intellectual property rights protection for such high value-added designs would provide design developers with a more strategic legal protection basis that would be useful in securing remedies under the Intellectual Property Law.

화상디자인에 있어서 저작권/디자인권 경로 효과 필터로서의 기능성-화상 요건

이남경(Lee, Nam Kyoung),신혜은(Shin, Hye Eun) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2021 과학기술과 법 Vol.12 No.2

In the late 20 century, computer graphic technology enabled graphic image design embodied in a variety of display screens of devices such as a cellular phone. Graphic image designs embodied in display screens became protected by design rights by the revision in the level of guidelines in many countries. However, in this 21th century, computer graphic image designs were freed from display screens thanks to the new 4th generation computer graphic technology. To protect graphic image designs oudside screens in the form of design rights, design laws themselves had to be revised. In South Korea, the 2021 design law made graphic image design automatically fulfill the article of manufacture requirement. Therefore all graphic images can pass over into the arena of design rights. In order to pull out non-functional graphic images which are cultural contents and send them back to the arena of copyrights, Korean design law put a new filter requirement by adding a restriction clause into the definition of graphic image designs. This article reviews the article of manufacture requirement and the restriction of the definition of the graphic image design in the right of intellectual property channeling effect filters. Under the umbrella of the intellectual property law, channeling doctrines, which channel inventions to the arena of utility patent rights, copyright materials to that of copyrights, trademarks to that of trademark rights and designs to that of design rights, play their roles to prevent backdoor patent, backdoor copyright etc. That is because backdoor rights inhibit industrial competition and cultural free expression. The most famous channeling doctrine is the functionality exclusion doctrine which blocks backdoor patents all through in the areas of design law, copyright law and trademark law. This article views that the article of manufacture requirement is a copyright/design right channeling filter that separate applied art copyright materials from design for utilitarian articles. However the article of manufacture requirement cannot be an appropriate copyright/design right channeling filter for graphic image designs. With it, functional graphic image designs cannot enter into the arena of design rights and thus fair competition in the related industry is disturbed. Without it, non-functional graphic image designs pour into the arena of design rights and the freedom of expression is oppressed. This article relates that the new filter introduced in the form of the restriction of the definition of the graphic image design, that is, “provided for use in the operation of the device or displayed as a result of the device performing its function” is in substitute for the article of manufacture requirement in order to separate and channel copyright materials and designs in relation to graphic image designs. This article named the new filter as “the functional-graphicimage-requirement” in order to distinguish it with the so-called functionality exclusion doctrine by shortening the long words “provided for use in the operation of the device or displayed as a result of the device performing its function” to a word, “functional.”

신규성 상실의 예외와 관련된 자유실시디자인의 의미에 대한 고찰

정태호 사법발전재단 2022 사법 Vol.1 No.60

The recently sentenced Patent Court decision 2020Heo5412 on May 7, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “the subject decision”) ruled that the design subject to confirmation is a freely practiced design based on the publicly known design with the exception to lack of novelty in a trial to confirm scope of a design right. Accordingly, the subject decision suggested an important topic on how to interpret the meaning of a freely practiced design in relation to the exception to lack of novelty. However, I don't think the interpretation theory of the subject decision is valid. If a person eligible for design registration has received design registration due to the exception to lack of novelty, the publicly known design, which is the basis, cannot be regarded as being in the area of a freely practiced design. In other words, since the publicly known design should be recognized as a non-free publicly known design belonging to the exclusive practiced design area of the design right holder, it is not reasonable to judge that the design subject to confirmation corresponds to a freely practiced design based on that case. For a registered design with the exception to lack of novelty, it is reasonable to deny the defense of a freely practiced design based on such publicly known design by not considering the validity of such registered design. This interpretation is also reasonable in light of international interpretation theories such as the defense of an existing technology in China and the defense of a freely practiced design in Japan, etc. Considering the fundamental meaning and purpose of free implementation design, it can be seen that a freely practiced design was introduced as roundabout means for such defense in a defender because the invalidation of a design right and abuse of right cannot be claimed in the trial to confirm scope of design right. Therefore, it is not desirable to decide that it is a freely practiced design by formally comparing only the publicly known design and the design subject to confirmation in excluding all relevance to the registered design. It is not desirable to neutralize legal regulations by interpreting a freely practiced design being a theory that is limitedly recognized in judicial precedence and applying it before exception to lack of novelty recognized under the Design Protection Act. Therefore, in the application of a free implementation design, a decision should be made in consideration of whether exception to lack of novelty are recognized. The Design Protection Act has provisions that protect legitimate rights holders. Therefore, it is not reasonable to easily recognize the defense of a freely practiced design by comparing only the publicly known design registered by the legitimate right holder in recognition of exception to lack of novelty and the design subject to confirmation. And it will neutralize the design right of the legitimate right holder.

디자인보호법상 모인(冒認) 법리의 검토

김동준 경북대학교 IT와 법연구소 2023 IT와 법 연구 Vol.0 No.26

If an applicant for design registration files a design A', that has been changed by modifications in view of subject matter A, derived from another, it is unclear whether the design A' is rejected or, if registered, revoked. According to the Supreme Court Decision 2009 Hu 2463, one who has not delivered a substantial contribution to the invention in suit is not an inventor and amendments and modifications that remain within the scope of actions of a person skilled in the art are not substantial contributions. The Patent Court Decision 2021 Heo 5358 (hereinafter “the Decision”) applied the holding of the Supreme Court Decision 2009 Hu 2463 to a design usurpation case. This article reviews the Decision and the principles of usurpation under the design protection law. First of all, in order to sanction usurpation, modifications which are within the ambit of a person skilled in the design should be disregarded when determining the identity between the design A' and the design A. Consistent applications of this case law will be required. In case this does not work, legislative actions should be considered. Although the basic principles of usurpation under the patent law may apply to the design protection law, the characteristics of the design protection law should be considered when applying the principles of usurpation. For example, novelty under the design protection law is determined by similarity between the design A and the design A'. However, novelty under the patent law is determined by substantial identity between the invention A and the invention A'. Therefore, the substantial identity under the patent law is not applicable to the design protection law. With the amendment of the Patent Act in 2016, a rightful owner is entitled to recover his patent right with regard to the derived invention. However, the design protection law was not amended at that time, and it remains the same until now. There is no reason to treat design rights differently from patent rights in relation to the rightful owner's remedy. In addition, it is inefficient for the rightful owner to file his own application according to the article 45 of the Design Protection Act. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the Design Protection Act so that a rightful owner be entitled to recover his design right by way of transfer with regard to the derived design. If a system for requesting recovery of the design right is newly adopted in the Design Protection Act as a remedy for the rightful owner, it is desirable to amend the standing for invalidation trials. Like the Patent Act, it would be desirable to make an amendment to limit the standing for invalidation trial to the rightful owner.

디자인보호법의 발전방향에 관한 소고

이상정 ( Lee Sang Jeong ) 한국지식재산연구원 2005 지식재산논단 Vol.2 No.2

This is the study about how to revise our current design act. Our current design act consists of the substantial examination system(SES) and non-substantial examination system(NSES). From 1998 we have a dual system. We introduced the NSES for the short-term life cycled products. The rights conferred through SES and NSES are same: monopolistic right. So many designs without qualification have exclusive rights. Those are hindering the development of design industry. It must be changed. This paper propose the abolishment of dual system. But it does not mean to turn back to the pre-1998 system. It is out of date and inefficient for all designs to be examined substantially to be registered. Even though all designs should be registered to gain the design right, it need not be examined whether it fulfills the substantial requirement. If only formal and procedural requirements are fulfilled, it could be registered. But before the right-h이der enforce the right it must be undergone substantial examination. So substantial examination is pre-requite for the enforcement. It must be based on the request of right holder. The time of the request for the examination must be limited like patent law. The nature of right from registration is monopolistic and the right has a block effect. This paper opposed the two-tier system: opposition to the adoption of unregistered design right system(UDRS). The major problem is the uncertainty. As [Australian Law Reform Report] says a manufacturer may be uncertain whether his or her product is so similar that it will be taken to be a copy. And in a sense we have already UDRS. It is in the Unfair Competition Law and Copyright Law. Not common-place design is protected from so-called dead copy by Unfair Competition Law, and copyright law protect some designs from copying. So there is no need to introduce the UDRS into the Design Protection Act itself.

디자인 권리 강화를 위한 디자인제도 및 트레이드 드레스의 전략적 활용 연구

이민주(Min Ju Lee),허병무(Byung Mu Huh),나건(Ken Nah) 한국디자인문화학회 2012 한국디자인문화학회지 Vol.18 No.4

최근 애플과 삼성의 특허분쟁을 통해 디자인권과 특허기술의 분쟁이라는 점에서 특허기술간 분쟁과 차이점을 보이고 있다. 기존 디자인 프로세스에서 고려되지 않았던 디자인권이 중요한 요소로 부각되는 사건이었다. 본 연구에서는 기존 디자인 프로세스에서 고려되지 않았던 디자인 제도의 전략적 활용을 통해 디자인의 권리를 강화하고 상표권과의 접목을 통한 디자인 권리의 확장을 제시하였다. 이를 위해, 지식재산권 구조를 살펴보고 디자인 관점에서 재정리하였으며, 디자인권과 상표권과의 차이점을 분석하여 디자인 권리의 확장에 대한 전략적 활용방안을 연구하였다. 유사디자인 제도와 부분디자인 제도를 살펴보고, 사례를 통한 기존 디자인 프로세스 상에도 도출되는 산출물에 대한 디자인 제도의 전략적 활용 방안을 제시하였다 .이를 바탕으로 디자인권리 확장을 위해 국내의 입체상표 제도와 미국의 트레이드 드레스 제도의 적용사례를 살펴보고 이를 통한 전략적 권리 확장방안에 대해 연구하였다. 본 연구를 통해 디자인 프로세스에서 디자인권리에 대한 분석 및 전략적 활용을 통한 분쟁에 대한 경제 손실을 사전에 방지하고, 제품개발 초기에서부터 디자인의 제도적 검증 및 전략적 활용에 대해 기대해 본다. Recently, the case of patent dispute with APPLE and SAMSUNG was magnified as dispute of design rights and patents, no more conflict of technology patents. This case was magnified intellectual property rights, that was the key issue in the design field. In this study, to purpose the extension of design rights through combining trademark rights and to make stronger design rights through strategic application of design regulation that was not considered in design process. For this study to reorganize the regulation of intellectual property rights, industrial property rights and design rights, and search the strategical expansion of trademark and trade dress system through the case study and signification. In this Study, search the regulation of similar design and partial design, and to purpose the strategic application of design regulation using output in the design process through the case study. Base on the this, study the effective regulation of three-dimensional trademark and trade dress for extend design rights. Through this study, respect to extend designer`s consciousness about the extension and maintenance of design intellectual property rights through the strategical application.

디자인권 정보를 활용한 디자인 정량 분석의 효과성과 효율성 연구

이민주(Min Ju Lee),나건(Ken Nah) 한국디자인문화학회 2012 한국디자인문화학회지 Vol.18 No.2

정보화 시대를 넘어 감성 시대로의 사회적 변화는 소비자의 다양한 욕구를 발생시켰다. 정보화시대와 IT의 발전은 지식의 보편화 현상을 이루었으며, 산업적 측면에서 기업 및 개인이 보유한 특허, 상표, 디자인에 대한 권리확보와 침해의 양상이 더욱더 부각되게 되었다. 특허권과 상표권의 경우 분쟁사례가 활발히 진행되어 산업재산권이 제공하는 독점·배타적 권리의 확보와 유지에 적극적인 양상을 보이고 있다. 그러나, 디자인 업계에서는 아직까지 지식재산권에 대한 인식이 부족한 현상이다. 연구의 목적은 디자인권을 활용한 디자인 정량 분석에 대한 효율성과 효과성을 연구를 통해 디자이너의 창작 권리를 효과적으로 보호하며, 권리확보에 효율적인 분석 방법론을 제시하여, 정량화된 데이터를 통한 권리확보, 분쟁방지를 위한 방향을 제시하고자 한다.연구의 방법은 디자인권을 활용한 정보를 제공한특허청 디자인맵 사이트와 지역지식재산센터에서 수행되었던 디자인맵 작성지원사업의 사례를 중심으로 분석하였다. 연구의 범위는 디자인권 제도와 디자인권 데이터의 속성 그리고 그를 통한 디자인 정량 분석의 사례를 포함한다. 본 연구에서는 디자인권 분석과 그 적용사례의 분석을 통해 향후 효과적이고 효율적인 디자인 정량분석의 가이드라인이 제시하고자 한다. The change of the century to the emotion from the information, is made the various desire of the customer. Information century and development of IT are made for generalization of Intellectual, is magnified to secure and infringe for the right of patent, trademark, and design in industry. The case of patent and trademark are in dispute actively, the to secure and to maintain for the exclusive right that is supported by the law of industrial property. But, the industry of design is too sick recognition for Intellectual Property Right. The purpose of this research is the efficiency and effectiveness of the design quantitative analysis by using design right, and the designer`s creative rights are effectively protected, the rights secured by presenting an efficient analysis methodology, the rights secured by quantitative data, and conflict prevention for directions is presented. The method of this research is the case study of KIPO`s Design Map site and Design map Development Support Project. The scope of this research is including institution of design rights, attribution of design rights data and the case of design quantitative analysis. In this research, to purpose the guideline of effective and efficient design quantitative analysis through the case studies of design right analysis.