패션디자인 보호를 둘러싼 분쟁양상과 법적 쟁점 - 저작권법ㆍ디자인보호법 및 부정경쟁방지법상 판례를 중심으로 -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper suggests that Copyright Approach appears to be better alternative for protection of fashion design when compared to design law or unfair competition law. However, for the solutions to the problems of implementing copyright for fashion, the Copyright Protection of fashion design is necessary to meet realistic needs and provide a realistic duration. In sum, the Copyright Act provide substantive protection to fashion design. In sum, a more substantive, stronger protection of fashion design can be found through the Copyright Act as works of applied art. This paper will be described with the following;In section Ⅱ, this paper will discuss whether or not fashion design currently is or could be protected under the copyright law, highlighting existing doctrines on useful articles and separability and comparing the US and Japanese legal approach to copyright protection for fashion design. The current copyright law will be maintain settled copyright principles concerning physical or conceptual separability and the useful article doctrine. However,highlighting the legislative intent of the provisions of works of applied art under the current copyright law, the court must not be continuing to uphold the traditional, restrictive interpretations of the Copyright Act and its provisions of works of applied art. Consequently, it is necessary to adopt a limited duration applied to the appropriate protection of fashion designs in addressing the concerns of the overprotection suchlike long-term duration (during the survival of the author and until 50 years after death). In section Ⅲ, this paper will discuss whether or not fashion design currently is or could be protected under the unfair competition law. Under the unfair competition law, a designer must show that the sale of a copy is likely to confuse the public, because the public has acquired a secondary meaning for mark. Fashion is notoriously ephemeral and transient. In fact, by the transient and seasonal nature of the fashion industry, the majority of designers will be defeated. Thus, the Dead Copy Prohibition provision was newly established and introduced as an act of unfair competition as Article 2,subparagraph (1), item (Ja) of the amended Act of Unfair Competition Law of 2004. The protection period is very short, only for 3 years as the minimun investment pay-back period. In section Ⅳ, this paper will discuss whether or not fashion design currently is or could be protected under the design law. Under the current Design Protection Act, protection is granted to a new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. However, fashion designs have frequently held to have failed these requirements in the court decisions. Even if they met these requirements, the design right is difficult and expensive to obtain, and entail a lenthy examination process. According to an commentator, design law would appear to be a poor fit fashion design. Thus,A non-examination design registration system(Article 2, subparagraph (v))was introduced under the former Design Act(enforced on March 1, 1998). The design registration procedure of Korea is characterized by being referred to as the double track. In section Ⅴ, this paper will summarize conclusions.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 문제의 소재
• Ⅱ. 패션디자인의 저작권법상 보호방안
• 1. 저작권법상 보호의 개요
• 2. 우리나라의 사례
• 3. 미국의 사례
• 5. 저작권법과 디자인보호법의 중첩적 보호 문제
• Ⅲ. 패션디자인의 부정경쟁방지법상 보호 방안
• 1. 부정경쟁방지법상 보호의 개요
• 2. 부정경쟁방지법 제2조 제1호 가목(상품주체혼동행위) 및 나목(영업주체혼동행위)에 기한 패션디자인 보호
• 3. 부정경쟁방지법 제2조 제1호 자목(상품형태모방금지)에 기한 패션디자인 보호
• 4. 소결론
• Ⅳ. 패션디자인의 디자인보호법상 보호 방안
• 1. 디자인보호법상 보호의 개요
• 2. 패션디자인 관련 특허법원 판례
• 3. 디자인무심사등록제도
• 4. 디자인보호법상 보호의 한계
• Ⅴ. 결론(전망과 과제)
• 참고문헌

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 저작권심의조정위원회, "한국저작권판례집[2]" 1994
• 2 저작권심의조정위원회, "한국저작권판례집(6)" 2001
• 3 저작권심의조정위원회, "한국저작권판례집(4)" 1999
• 4 이상정, "직물디자인의 보호-소위 '대한방직 사건'을 중심으로" 저작권심의조정위원회 (34) : 1996
• 5 특허법원 지적재산소송실무연구회, "지적재산소송실무" 박영사 2006
• 6 이호흥, "저작권법과 디자인법의 교차영역에 관한 연구" 저작권위원회 2007
• 7 송영식, "저작권법개설(제5판)" 세창출판사 2009
• 8 오승종, "저작권법(제4판)" 박영사 2005
• 9 오승종, "저작권법" 박영사 2007
• 10 이해완, "저작권법" 박영사 2007
• 11 이상정, "이른바 ‘히딩크넥타이’도안의 저작물성- 대법원 2004. 7 22. 선고2003도7572 판결-" 세창출판사 (42) : 2006
• 12 윤선희, "의장(디자인)무심사등록제도에 관한 소고" 한국산업재산권법학회 14 : 121-150, 2003
• 13 차상육, "응용미술의 저작권법상 보호에 관한 연구" 한양대 대학원 2010
• 14 Perry J. Saidman, "The Crisis in the Law of Designs" 89 (89): 2007
• 15 Hedrick, Lisa J., "Tearing Fashion Design Protection Apart at the Seams" 65 (65): 2008
• 16 Christine Magdo, "Protecting Works of Fashion from Design Piracy" Legal Electronic Document Archive at Harvard Law School 2002
• 17 Jessica G. Jacobs, "Copyright protection for Fashion Design: A Legal Analysis of The Design Piracy Prohibition Act, H.R. 2033" 2007
• 18 Brian T. Yeh, "Copyright protection for Fashion Design: A Legal Analysis of The Design Piracy Prohibition Act(H.R. 2196)" 2009
• 19 Brandon Scruggs, "Comment, Should Fashion Design Be Copyrightable?" 6 : 122-, 2007
• 20 Kal Raustiala, "Christopher Sprigman, The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design" 92 : 2006
• 21 Jennifer Mencken, "A Design for the Copyright of Fashion" The Intellectual Property and Technology Forum at Boston College Law School 1997
• 22 문삼섭, "2009년 12월에 개정된 디자인보호법시행규칙의 주요 내용에 대한 소고" 특허청 2010