After a product launches, derivative variations inevitably follow — a tweaked handle, a different curvature ratio, a refreshed graphic. If those variations are similar but not identical to the base design, the safest move is to wrap them into separate rights. Korea's Design Protection Act provides for exactly that through the related design system.
A related design is one that is similar only to the applicant's own base design and is filed as a separate application within a defined window. This system replaced the old 'similar design' regime so that variations can carry their own scope of rights and enforcement rather than being trapped as appendices to the base design.
What is a Related Design?
Design Protection Act article 35 defines a related design as one that the design rights holder or applicant files where the new design is similar only to that holder's own registered design or pending application. The base design must be the applicant's own, and the related design must be similar only to that base. Similarity to a third party's design is fatal — it becomes an ordinary refusal ground.
The related design system was introduced to fix the limits of the older 'similar design' regime, where variants were subordinate and could not be enforced independently. As KIPO explains, related designs now have independent scope and term while still being tied to the base design for transfer and certain disposals. It is the workhorse of design portfolios for any product line that ships variations.
Filing Window and Requirements
A related design must be filed within three years from the filing date of the base design. The window used to be one year and was extended to three to give companies more room for staged variant launches. The three-year clock is absolute — even one day late, the application loses related-design status and can be refused over the applicant's own base design.
- The base design must be the applicant's own registered design or pending application
- The related design must be similar to (not identical with) the base design
- The related design must be filed within three years of the base design's filing date
- It must not be similar to any third party's prior designs
- The base design must not have an exclusive licence registered against it
Exclusive Licence: A Hidden Block
Article 35(3) bars a related design when an exclusive licence is already registered on the base design. Once one party holds exclusive rights to use the base design, granting another related-design right would create unavoidable conflicts. This is one of the most overlooked traps in design licensing.
Effect of Rights — Independent Yet Bound
A registered related design has its own scope of rights, but it is still tied to the base design for several lifecycle events. Transfers, exclusive licences, and similar disposals must be made together with the base, and the term ends on the same date as the base design. Filing a related design later does not buy a longer term — it inherits the base's expiration.
| Item | Base design | Related design |
|---|---|---|
| Who can file | Original applicant | Same applicant as the base design |
| Filing window | Open (first-to-file) | Within 3 years of the base filing date |
| Scope | Independent | Independent, but transfers move with base |
| Term | 20 years from filing | Same expiration as base design |
| Similarity to others | Refusal ground | Refusal ground (must be similar only to own base) |
How Practitioners Use It
Related designs play both defensive and offensive roles. They cover variant SKUs against design-around copies and let licensors bundle whole product lines. The patterns below appear in most active design portfolios.
- Series rollout: cover SKUs that change colour, material, or proportion as a single family
- Renewal economics: anchor a portfolio with one base design plus several related designs
- Anti-design-around: absorb minor visual changes that copyists use to dodge the base scope
- Foreign priority leverage: use the Korean base design as a priority basis abroad while filing related designs at home to widen the local right
- Refresh response: catch minor refreshes 1-3 years post launch under the same family
Cost and Timeline: A Practitioner's View
Official fees match those for ordinary design applications, including options for partial or multiple-design filings. Examination averages 8-12 months and can be cut roughly in half with expedited examination. Attorney fees are usually a touch higher than for an ordinary design because drafting must consider similarity to the base design.
| Item | Range (illustrative) |
|---|---|
| Filing fee (1 design) | KRW 94,000 |
| Registration fee (years 1-3) | KRW 75,000 |
| Expedited examination request | KRW 70,000 |
| Average examination time | 8-12 months (shorter with expedited) |
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Can I file a related design before the base design is registered?
Yes. The statute requires the base to be a 'registered design or pending application' — pending status is enough. But the examination of the related design depends on the base, so if the base is refused, abandoned, or withdrawn, the related design loses its anchor and may itself be refused. When filing a series at once, validate the base design's chances first.
Q2. What if my variation appears more than three years after the base?
After the three-year window, the related-design route is closed. Two paths remain: file an ordinary design application with drawings that emphasise the differences from your base, or file a brand-new base design and then build a fresh related-design family around it. The choice depends on how far the variant has drifted from the original.
Q3. Can I assign or licence a related design on its own?
Some lifecycle events must move with the base. A related design cannot be transferred separately, and exclusive licences typically cannot be granted in isolation either. In licence negotiations, deals are quoted as a base-plus-related package, so the count of related designs directly drives portfolio valuation.
Q4. What happens if the base design is invalidated after registration?
A related design has its own scope, so a final invalidation of the base does not automatically extinguish it. However, if the same invalidation ground (lack of novelty, for example) applies to the related design, a separate invalidation trial can target it. When invalidation risk is significant, run prior-art searches against both the base and the planned related designs at the filing stage.
Manage design families on iphere
Track base and related designs together — filing, registration, annuities — in a single workspace.