Earticle

Home

산업재산권 [Journal of Industrial Property]

간행물 정보
  • 자료유형
    학술지
  • 발행기관
    한국지식재산학회 [Korea Intellectual Property Society]
  • ISSN
    1598-6055
  • 간기
    연3회
  • 수록기간
    1995~2019
  • 등재여부
    KCI 등재
  • 주제분류
    사회과학 > 법학
  • 십진분류
    KDC 360 DDC 340
제24호 (8건)
No

【발표논문】

1

상표위조행위에 대한 법정손해배상제도의 도입 검토

김원오

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제24호 2007.12 pp.1-30

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

Recently KORUS FTA including the Clause that "Each Party shall ... in cases of trademark counterfeiting, establish or maintain pre-established damages..." has been concluded at the end. Therefore, Korea should amend trademark laws to allow courts to award significant statutory (or “pre-established”) damages against counterfeiters. This article aims to review on the desirable statutory damages system that should be introduced into the Korean trademark law as an implementation action of KORUS FTA. This article firstly studies a statutory damages in general by comparing it with a lost-profit damages and punitive damages. Further, this article is to address issues concerning the principle requirements for the statutory damages system and proper amount by analyzing the rules and regulations of other countries each other including Lanham Act and Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Under the KORUS FTA and the American rules and regulations, a statutory damages is to be sought only to the counterfeiting of the registered trademark in use. Therefore, it is firstly required to define "trademark counterfeiting" distinguishing from the general trademark infringement. Further, trademark owners may elect statutory damages, at any time before final judgment is rendered by the trial court in recognition of situations where it is difficult for the trademark owners to prove their measurable monetary damage. It is also notable that there is some exceptions, which does not include any mark used on or in connection with goods or services of which the manufacture or producer was, at the time of the manufacture or production in question authorized to use the mark. In order to introduce it into Korean trademark law system properly, the above issues are discussed or examined and proposed a desirable directions for the revision of the Korean trademark law.

7,000원

2

저작권 침해행위의 ‘영리성’ 해석 : 독일에서의 논의를 중심으로

김정환

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제24호 2007.12 pp.31-62

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

Verletzungen fremder Urheberrechte und verwandter Schutzrechte sind nicht nur zivilrechtlich sanktioniert, sondern zugleich strafrechtlich sanktioniert (§§ 136~142 koreanisches UrhG). In den Fallen der unerlaubten Verwertung urheberrechtlich geschutzter Werke wird die Tat grundsatzlich nur auf Antrag verfolgt, aber dem besonders gefahrlichen und schadigenden Verhalten des gewerbsmaßigen kriminellen Rechtsbrechers tragt der Offizialdelikt Rechnung (§§ 140 koreanisches UrhG). Dabei wirkt der Begriff der Gewerbsmaßigkeit als Unterscheidungskriterium zwischen der Antragsdelikt und der Offizialdelikt, und damit ist die Auslegung der Gewerbsmaßigkeit wesentlich. Dafur habe ich die deutsche Auslegungen des Gewerbsmaßigkeitsbegriffs, denn die deutsche Vorschriften im Bezug auf Unterscheidungskriterium zwischen der Antragsdelikt und der Offizialdelikt so ahnlich wie die koreanische. Danach wird wie folgt ausgelegt: Gewerbsmaßigkeit liegt vor, wenn der Tater in der Absicht handelt, sich durch wiederholte Tatbegehung eine fortlaufende Einnahmequelle von einiger Dauer und einigem Umfang zu verschaffen. Es ist nicht erforderlich, dass der Tater vorhat, aus seinem Tun ein kriminelles Gewerbe zu machen. Unter diesen Voraussetzungen kann schon eine einmalige Gesetzesverletzung ausreichen. Ob die Angeklagte gewerbsmaßig gehandelt haben, beurteilt sich nach ihren ursprunglichen Planungen, sowie ihrem tatsachlichen, strafrechtlich relevanten Verhalten uber den gesamten ihnen jeweils anzulastenden Tatzeitraum. Gewerbsmaßigkeit wird also durch ein subjektives Moment begrundet. Das kann schon durch die erste der ins Auge gefassten Tathandlungen der Fall sein. Hierbei muss sich die Wiederholungsabsicht auf dasjenige Delikt beziehen, dessen Tatbestand durch das Merkmal der Gewerbsmaßigkeit qualifiziert ist. Gewerbsmaßigkeit ist nicht gleichbedeutend mit Gewerblichkeit. Eine Handelstatigkeit im engeren Sinn oder eine geldliche Bereicherung sind nicht erforderlich. Es genugt, dass der Dieb Stehlgut fur sich verwenden will, indem er es fortlaufend zur Deckung eigener Bedurfnisse einsetzt und eigene Aufwendungen einspart.

7,300원

【일반논문】

3

“특허를 받을 수 있는 권리”에 관한 연구 : 특허법 제33, 34, 35조를 중심으로

윤선희

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제24호 2007.12 pp.63-101

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

The circumstances in many respects have been changed together with improvement science and technology. Although it is usefulness to human life, there are many problems, such as copying other's skills and infringement of the right of owner. Furthermore, the problem of imitating is not domestic but international. Even then, the act is brought before the proceeding of application. Hence, it is necessary to protect such right to patent before filing and examination. For those reasons, Patent law system has some of statutory of right to protect inventor, and confers certain property upon the inventor; The right to obtain a patent may be transferred by Article 37(1). Such as the right of belonging, pledging and remedies around the right to obtain a patent, however, is question. Thus, this study focused on the relationship between inventor and others with the right to obtain a patent by Article 33, 37, 38.

8,400원

4

특허제도의 국제적 조화 및 전망 : TRIPs 협정상의 권리소진, 강제실시 및 한ㆍ미 FTA 협상 내용을 중심으로

박영규

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제24호 2007.12 pp.103-143

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

Patente spielen in der modernen Wissensgesellschaft eine immer wichtige Rolle als Mittel der Bewertung von Unternehmen und bei der Forderung von technischen Innovationen, Wettbewerbsfahigkeit und Wirtschaftswachstum. Ein Patentsystem, welches uber kein harmonisiertes materielles Patentrecht verfugt, kann seiner genuinen Funktion nicht mehr gerecht werden. Nach allgemeiner herrschender Auffassung wird Art. 6 TRIPs dahin interpretiert, dass dieses Ubereinkommen auf eine Regelung der internationalen Erschopfung verzichtet und es jedem Mitgliedsland uberlassen habe, sich fur das ihm gunstigere System zu entscheiden. Nach hiesiger Uberzeugung ist die Frage, ob TRIPs die internationale Erschopfung regelt, also nicht mehr unter Zuhilfenahme des Art. 6 pauschal fur alle Rechte des geistigen Eigentums zu beantworten. Vielmehr mussen hierfur in erster Linie die sich auf das jeweilige Recht beziehenden besonderen Vorschriften herangezogen werden. vorlaufig hangt also das erfolgreiche Funktionieren des internationalen Schutzes der Rechte des geistiges Eigentums im Kontext der internationalen Wirtschaftsordnung vom Erfullen der TRIPs-Verpflichtungen aller WTO-Mitgliedstaaten ab. Die TRIPs-minus-Standards nach dem Doha-Modell sollten eine einmalige Ausnahme bleiben, da sie letztlich das System nur verzerren und schwachen, ohne die angegangenen Probleme wirklich dauerhaft interessenund sachgerecht losen zu konnen.

8,700원

5

特許侵害訴訟에서 非侵害 抗辯手段으로서 權利消盡論

김길원

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제24호 2007.12 pp.145-187

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion or first sale rules, once a patent owner has sold, without limitation, an article that fully embodies a patented invention, he has no further right of exclusion for the use or resale of the article against the purchaser. That is, first authorized sale of a patented product places the article outside the patent owner's right of exclusion. The reason why a patentee cannot enforce against the purchaser is that the patentee's exclusive right of embodied patent in the product was used up once he has sold or licensed it. This study, therefore, has scrutinized almost all cases involving with patent exhaustion issues in the United States and Japan; as a result, it may provide clear guidances and standards for application to patent exhaustion in patent infringement suits. The important limitation on the doctrine of patent exhaustion is that it does not apply if the patent claims do not cover/read the product sold by a patentee or its licensee. Eventually if an alleged claim does not covered or read the products sold, the lawsuit would be failed since it does not create patent infringement. This is why the claim(s) to de covered a certain products. In addition, in LG Electronics., Inc. v. Asustek Computer, Inc. the courts held that the apparatus claim was exhausted but the method claim was not exhausted. That is, the doctrine did not apply to the asserted method claims because the claims could not read on the sold product. Notwithstanding a steady negative holdings as to method claims, this study would like to suggest that any method claims which are substantially identical to apparatus claims be exhausted. In addition, a flowchart which is pertinent to the suggestion has been showed apprehensively in this paper.

9,000원

6

특허권과 개발도상국에서의 의약품에 대한 접근과의 조화를 위한 모색 : TRIPS 협정과 그 이 후

이윤주

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제24호 2007.12 pp.189-234

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

Since the 1995 World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) there has been a growing tension in developing countries between the right of patients to access affordable medicines and the obligation to protect the patent rights of the pharmaceutical companies. This tension has arguably led to a growing crisis in public health in developing countries. This article examines this issue in six parts; following an introduction, part Ⅱ summarizes the tension between patent rights and patient rights. Part Ⅲ highlights the flexibilities created by TRIPS and its subsequent amendment that aim to mitigate the potentially negative consequences of patenting on access to medicines. This part explains the system of compulsory licensing that allows third parties to produce and sell patented drugs without the consent of the rights holder, so long as governments follow certain procedures. In addition, the system of parallel imports is examined under TRIPS. Despite these flexibilities, many developing countries have failed to take advantage of this flexibility by not incorporating the appropriate provisions into national law. Parts Ⅳ and Ⅴ examine three of the reasons constraining access to medicines in developing countries. The first is a problem over Article 31(f) of TRIPS that is restricted to domestic market supply. The second is a problem of the uncertainty over the scope of Article 31 of TRIPS. It appears that through a combination of political pressure, legal challenges and other tactics, the pro-pharmaceutical company lobby has sought to prevent developing countries from exercising their rights under TRIPS. To address these problems, the "Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health" and an unprecedented subsequent amendment to TRIPS in 2005 reinforced the original agreement. The third reason is the threat to compulsory licensing via regional or bilateral pressure, particularly when exerted through free trade agreements (FTAs). Such agreements have introduced so-called "TRIPS-plus" measures such as "data exclusivity" and "marketing approval/patent linkage" provisions that have the potential to constrain the ability of developing countries to use compulsory licensing. This section also looks at these TRIPS-plus measures within the recent Korea/US FTA. Part Ⅵ concludes that without a greater sense of global responsibility by developed countries and pharmaceutical companies, the combination of TRIPS and FTAs could prove a hindrance to improving public health in the developing world.

9,400원

7

기타 식별력이 없는 상표의 상표 등록 허용 여부 : 특허법원 2007. 7. 11. 선고 2005허9886 판결

김병일

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제24호 2007.12 pp.235-271

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

A trademark or trade mark is a distinctive sign or indicator of some kind which is used by an individual, business organization or other legal entity to uniquely identify the source of its products and/or services to consumers, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities The Trade Mark Act (TMA) establishes a fundamental system of protection based on registration rather than use, while for protection under the UCPA the existence of a secondary meaning and actual likelihood of confusion is required. Trade mark rights do not, therefore, arise merely through the use of a trade mark, regardless of how well-known the mark may be. On the other hand, it is evident that system of first use adopted in other countries For example, the United States of America, the Philippines, Indonesia and all countries with a legal system based on the traditional British model..has had some influence on the Trade Mark Act. For example, according to Sec. 2 TMA, which requires distinctiveness as a requirement for registration, even a trade mark which is not distinct (and thus not registrable) may be registered provided the mark has become well-known among consumers by use and has consequently acquired "secondary meaning", Sec. 6(2). The TMA categorizes the following kinds of marks as lacking distinctiveness (Sec. 6(1)): - Generic or common names for the product; - Descriptive mark; - Conspicuous geographical names; - Common surnames or titles and - Simple or common marks. - Mark devoid of any distinctive chracter A trade mark acquires secondary meaning when, over time, consumers have grown to recognis ethe mark as identifying a particular company products. However, in such case, evidence verifying such use and notoriety should be submitted at the time of filing. In assessing whether a trade mark acquires secondary meaning, the grounds under Section(1) 1-7(taken together with Section 6(2)) should be justified on the basis of 'Freihaltebedurfnis'.

8,100원

8

정보검색 서비스에 관한 저작권법적 고찰

김윤명

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제24호 2007.12 pp.273-310

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

The information retrieval service which becomes accomplished at the Internet is for the user, to inform the approach point against information which is opened to the public role. Retrieval service as the business model where the technology and the process which are various are demanded. Retrieval service hazard stands and information which is opened to the public first in order about under collecting about under processing the retrieval search which will reach to be easy, the indexing technology which it does is necessary. Information craweling of the others with the dispute was under occurring from this process. And, it followed in character of information and the slander problem which stands or online service provider as portal business owners became problem. The thumbnail retrieval service, which OSP provides it appears and is becoming representative instance of copyright dispute or the Internet relation dispute. The retrieval service is accomplishing a social role or a public achievement role, but the result which it does not intend. Namely, the information retrieval service even from the business model which is important seeks information from position of the user, with the service tool it will be able to use role but with copyright dispute is same and it is in order to bring the problem which is newly. Consequently, information retrieval leads solution or arrangement of the problem which becomes accomplished only without the user will not be able to drift from the ocean of information which is enormous it is the Internet. So, this article researches the legal nature of retrieval service which provides search business owner and the issues in context of copyright for the promotion of information culture and information use from information retrieval.

8,200원

 
페이지 저장