INTRODUCTION
Designs, defined as the appearance of the whole or a part of a product, or of the ornamentation on it, arising from features such as line, shape, form, color, material, or surface texture, are protected for a period of 25 years under the Industrial Property Law No. 6769 (“IPL”), provided that they are new and have individual character.
In this context, complex products considered within the scope of design protection and the components forming such complex products are elements that affect the aesthetic and visual integrity of the relevant product, while at the same time assuming a complementary role in completing its functionality. Spare parts, which are frequently encountered particularly in the automotive and electronics sectors, are elements that directly affect the commercial value and service life of the product.
However, certain technical and visual constraints involved in the creation of these parts, together with their functional purpose, have made it necessary to provide for certain exceptions with respect to the protection of components of complex products and spare parts within this scope as designs under the IPL.
1. Components of Complex Products and Spare Parts
Pursuant to Article 55(3) of the IPL, a complex product is defined as “a product composed of multiple components that can be replaced or renewed through disassembly and reassembly.” Each component of a complex product exhibits different characteristics depending on the technical requirements and intended use of the product for which it is designed. These components are designed to ensure the overall functionality of the product and are technically optimized to operate in full compatibility with it. For example, brake discs of an automobile must comply with vehicle-specific installation requirements as well as material properties affecting braking performance; whereas a printer cartridge must have dimensions and connection points that allow it to be fitted in accordance with the printer’s mechanism. Such differences ensure that a complex product not only fulfills its technical functions but also incorporates details that enhance the user experience of the product for which it is designed. Accordingly, each component of a complex product is, in essence, the result of a distinct design process combining technical and aesthetic requirements.
However, the IPL does not provide a specific definition of spare parts. In legal doctrine, a spare part is defined as “components that can be disassembled and reassembled, which replace the original part in cases where a complex product requires part replacement due to reasons such as wear, abrasion, or impact.” As is clear from this definition, a spare part must have a physical connection to the complex product. Accordingly, components such as a steering wheel or brake pedal of an automobile may be considered spare parts, whereas coffee cups forming a set cannot be regarded as spare parts, since there is no physical connection between them.
With regard to spare part designs, the appearance of spare parts constitutes the subject matter of such designs and, provided that they meet the conditions stipulated under the IPL, they benefit from design protection.
In this respect, pursuant to Article 56(2) of the IPL, for the protection of a component design, and accordingly spare part designs, it is required that (i) when the component is fitted to the complex product, it remains visible during the normal use of the complex product, and (ii) the features of the component that are visible satisfy the requirements of novelty and individual character. Where these conditions are fulfilled, the component of the complex product will be deemed to be new and to possess individual character, and may therefore be protected under the IPL.
1.1. Spare Parts Within the Scope of Legal Protection
Spare parts that are functionally and visually independent from the complex product allow the designer to freely exercise creative discretion. Such parts are not dependent on the overall appearance of the complex product. Moreover, there is no obligation for these parts to be designed in a specific manner in order for the product to perform its expected function.
For this reason, each component is considered a design in its own right and may benefit from design protection, provided that it satisfies the requirements of novelty and individual character. For example, the design of an automobile seat or a teapot handle may be protected as an independent design, as long as it is compatible with the connecting elements and possesses distinctive aesthetic or functional features.
By contrast, spare parts that are dependent on the overall appearance of the complex product and ensure aesthetic coherence are referred to as “must-match” parts. Where such parts are tied to the appearance of the complex product, they must be designed in a specific manner in order to match that appearance.
The design protection of such parts is regulated under Article 59(4) of the IPL. Pursuant to this provision, “the use of parts that are dependent on the appearance of a complex product, for repair purposes in order to restore the complex product to its original appearance, shall not constitute an infringement of the design right after three years from the date on which the design was first placed on the market, provided that such use is not misleading as to the source of the parts.” Accordingly, the design holder is granted an exclusive right for a period of three years, after the expiry of which the use of spare parts under certain conditions is expressly stipulated not to constitute an infringement of the design right.
The first of these conditions is the existence of a clear relationship between a complex product and a spare part that is dependent on its appearance. In other words, the relevant spare part must be designed in a manner that is dependent on the appearance of the complex product. The second condition is that the spare part must be used, during repair, for the purpose of restoring the complex product to its original appearance. If the repair serves a different purpose, such as conferring a new function on the complex product, this situation falls outside the scope of protection. The third condition requires that the public not be misled as to the source of the parts used. Any misrepresentation regarding the design or manufacture of such parts may give rise to exclusion from the scope of protection.
However, after three years have elapsed from the date on which such designs were first placed on the market, the use of spare parts that satisfy the above conditions is permitted. Accordingly, following the expiry of this three-year period, the contract manufacturing or use of the relevant spare parts shall not constitute an infringement of the design right.
1.2. Spare Parts Excluded from the Scope of Legal Protection
Certain spare parts must be designed in a specific manner due to the technical function of the product. Designs of this nature, which involve technical necessity, are referred to in legal doctrine as “must-fit” designs. For example, the connection section of an automobile exhaust pipe must be fully compatible with the vehicle, and in order to ensure such compatibility, it must be designed in a specific way. Regardless of whether such designs are visible or not, they cannot be subject to design registration, as they arise from a technical necessity. This matter is regulated under Article 58(4) of the IPL, which refers to “the appearance features of products that must be manufactured in specific shapes and dimensions in order to be mechanically assembled or connected to another product,” and accordingly excludes so-called must-fit designs from the scope of protection.
However, the IPL does not contain any explicit provision regarding the protection of non-visible spare part designs, and there are certain doctrinal debates concerning the protection of such designs. Nevertheless, the prevailing view in legal doctrine is that these designs cannot be brought within the scope of protection, as they do not satisfy the conditions set out in Article 56(2) of the IPL. Indeed, in its decision dated 25.09.2024, numbered E. 2023/4669 and K. 2024/6781, the Court of Cassation held that “the multiple designs subject to the dispute could be used as parts of a complex product; that the sections other than the front surface were based on functionality rather than design considerations; that they would not be visible during final use; and that the visible surfaces of the designs did not possess any design characteristics, and therefore failed to meet the requirements of novelty and individual character, as the visible parts did not constitute a design falling within the scope of design protection.”
With respect to equivalent parts, an exception is provided under Article 59(5) of the IPL. In the justification of the relevant provision, equivalent parts are defined as “products that can undergo certain tests in the same manner as the original part, whose ability to deliver the same results as the original part can be measured and certified.” The article further provides that equivalent parts published by the Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology may be used without waiting for the three-year period, and that such use shall not constitute an infringement of the design right. This regulation facilitates the rapid entry of equivalent parts into the market, thereby supporting in particular aftermarket manufacturers and offering more accessible alternatives for consumers. In this way, the legislator aims to strike a balance between the protection of design rights and broader economic benefits.
CONCLUSION
Under the IPL, the protection of designs is based on a legal framework grounded in the criteria of novelty, individual character, and visibility. However, with respect to complex products and their components, the provision of protection has necessitated the introduction of specific regulations addressing the balance between aesthetic elements and technical requirements.
Under the IPL, design protection covers designs that can strike a balance between aesthetics and functionality and that possess novelty and individual character, rather than parts that are dictated by technical necessity or that are not visible. Accordingly, components that reflect the designer’s creative freedom and have visible and distinctive features may be protected, provided that they meet the conditions set out under the IPL. By contrast, as also emphasized in the relevant decision of the Court of Cassation, designs that are non-visible or entirely functionality-driven cannot be protected under the IPL, since such designs cannot be regarded as new or as having individual character.
In this context, while a three-year period of protection is envisaged for spare parts that are referred to as “must-match” and whose design is dependent on the overall appearance of the complex product, spare parts described as “must-fit,” which must be designed in a specific manner due to technical necessity, cannot benefit from design protection.
Accordingly, it can be said that under the IPL, while innovative designs are encouraged and protected, the legislator also aims to establish a balanced protection mechanism by taking into account the limitations arising from technical necessity and functionality.
