IP Newsletter | Summer/Fall 2014
	TRADEMARK & DESIGN
	Korea Joins the Hague Agreement, Amends Design Act
	As of July 1, 2014, pursuant to Korea's recent accession to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs ("Hague Agreement"), the procedures of the Hague Agreement are now effective in Korea, as well as a number of new amendments to the Korean Design Protection Act ("Act"). These amendments provide greater protection for parties that apply for design rights in Korea, and also make the design application process easier and more practical. We anticipate that more companies and individuals will utilize design registrations as an added tool to help protect and maintain their intellectual property interests in Korea. Some of the more notable changes are briefly discussed below. 1. Implementation of International Design Applications Similar to the PCT for patents or Madrid Protocol for trademarks, international applications for designs may now be filed through a single application pursuant to the Hague Agreement. Specifically, it is now possible to forward a single design application to WIPO while designating several countries for registration of the design. 2. Extension of Protection Period The duration of a design right under the amended Act has been extended from fifteen years from the registration date to twenty years from the application date. 3. Reduction of Designs Eligible for Non-Substantive Examination The previous Act allowed applicants to file "non-substantive examination" applications for designs of food, clothing, shoes, fabrics, bedding, calculators, stationery, computer graphics, icons, etc. (which will then be registered after a very basic review of formalities). However, the amended Act reduces the types of goods that are eligible for non-substantive examination as follows:
	[Class 2] Clothing and fashion items E.g., underwear, lingerie, corset, brassiere, pajama, clothing, hat, shoes, socks, stocking, tie, scarf, muffler, handkerchief, gloves, etc. [Class 5] Fiber, sheet and fabrics E.g., spun articles, lace, needlework, ribbon, string for ornamental purpose, fabric, sheets, etc. [Class 19] Stationery, office supplies, fine art materials E.g., writing paper, letter, card, stationery, calendar, book, note, fine art materials, printed matter, office supplies, etc.
	Thus, designs for food, bedding, curtains, computer icons or graphics are no longer eligible for non-substantive examination. 4. Adoption of Related Design System The previous Similar Design system is abolished under the amended Act. The purpose of the former similar design registration practice was to make clear the scope of what is similar to an earlier-filed principal design by requiring similar designs by the same registrant to be separately registered. As a result, such similar design registrations could not be maintained if the principal design registration was itself invalidated. The new amendment instead adopts a "Related Design" system, recognizing an independent scope of protection and duration for a Related Design, and thereby strengthening the protection for designs similar to an original design. An application for a Related Design must be filed within one year of the filing date of the application for the original design. Unlike the Similar Design system, a Related Design will continue to remain valid even if the original design is invalidated. However, the protection period of a Related Design remains identical to that of the original design. 5. Claiming Exception to Public Disclosure To be valid, a design application generally cannot have been made public prior to the filing date of the application. However, an exception is available if the design application is filed within six months of a public disclosure. Previously, applicants were required to state their intention to claim this exception at the time of filing the application. The applicant also was required to submit documentation of the public disclosure within thirty days of filing the application. However, with the amended Act, the above exception to loss of novelty can be claimed even after filing the application, e.g., when an examiner issues a preliminary rejection or when a third party files an opposition or invalidation action. 6. Changes to the Multiple Design System The previous Act allowed up to 20 multiple designs in one application, but only for designs designated for non-substantive examination. The amended Act allows up to 100 designs for one application under the same class, regardless of whether the designs are subject to non-substantive examination. In addition, pursuant to the new amendments, requests to keep a design secret or to lay open an application do not have to apply to the entire group of multiple designs. Further, registration may be granted or denied as to a portion of multiple designs only. 7. Improved Procedure for Filing Applications Under the amended Act, examiners will no longer return design applications for re-filing due to substantive errors. Instead, the applicant may simply supplement the application, and the date of supplementation will become the new filing date. 8. Discretionary Revisions to Applications by the Examiner Under the amended Act, the examiner has the authority to make revisions to the application if there is an obvious error (e.g., typographical errors).
	Back to Main Page
	If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact:
	Sung-Nam KIM snkim@ip.kimchang.com Nayoung KIM nkim@ip.kimchang.com Inchan Andrew KWON ickwon@ip.kimchang.com
	For more information, please visit our website: www.ip.kimchang.com