자동차 대체부품 디자인권 제한과 WTO TRIPs의 양립 가능성

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.