디자인심사관행과 열린디자인심사

The examination of design applications at the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) is conducted in accordance with established regulations; however, the criteria for assessing design applications remain ambiguous, because the relevant provisions are primarily presented as illustrative examples. Consequently, design examinations have largely been conducted according to longstanding practices, granting examiners a broad scope of discretion. In particular, the sections entitled Description of the Design and Essential Features of the Creation lack clear regulatory requirements regarding mandatory content; thus, their preparation and evaluation have become largely formulaic, maintained in practice as a nominal formality. Similarly, despite abolishing the orthographic projection system more than fifteen years ago, the majority of applications continue to be submitted with orthographic drawings in accordance with established practice, and examiners conduct examinations on that basis. In addition to the relatively lenient treatment of omitted drawings, the conventional framework remains intact. Moreover, the criteria for evaluating renderings, photographs, and three-dimensional representations are also unclear and are in practice determined by conventions. While such practices, accumulated through long-standing interactions between applicants and examiners, have enhanced the predictability of examination outcomes, reliance on unwritten conventions has also given rise to inconsistencies in examinations and created barriers to entry for ordinary applicants. In response, it is necessary to increase transparency in the examination process, which has historically been conducted in a closed manner, and to improve established practices from the perspective of the general public. Recent initiatives undertaken by the KIPO, such as the Pre-Review system and Open Examination, provide significant opportunities for reforming examination practices. Furthermore, reasonable and well-established practices maintained over time should be coded as explicit regulations.