디자인 보호제도의 현황과 발전을 위한 제언

Design Protection in Korea began from 1908. But how many and what kinds of designs were protected by that Decree is not well known. After World War Ⅱ, we adopted the design-patent system like US. In 1961 sui generis Design Act was legislated and registered designs were protected. In 1987 applied art was exampled as copyrightable work, whereas the 1957 Act only protected the hand-craft. Even though copyright act was revised, the court ruled as before. That is applied art can be protected only in exceptional cases. After the supreme court's judgement Design Act was amended and adopted the Non-Substantive Examination System (NSES). But in 2000 the copyright act was amended and pronounced expressly that design is protected by copyright law on the condition that it can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of the article. In 2004 the shape of article began to be protected by Unfair Competition Prevention Act. There exist 3 main acts to protect the design. This paper studies how those acts apply to the 7 kinds of designs: those are Textile Design, Fashion Design, Type face Design, Editorial Design, Screen Display Design, Package Design, Graphic Character Design. After surveying practices in the KIPO and cases in the courts this paper points out the problems and suggests what to be revised for the improvements. Those are as follows:1) In the area of design protection act, it is more preferable to abolish the dual system and the Non-Substantive Examination System be expanded extensively to cover the all the classes of products. 2) In the area of copyright act, the definition of applied arts must be revised. The definition of U.S. copyright act is a good example. 3) In the area of unfair competition prevention act, the requirements to be protected by that law need to be reconsidered, and that provision should not be the barrier to free competition. In future it is preferable that all acts would be combined into one act and the subject matter and the requirements to be protected by that law must be prescribed expressly.