• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.67
• /
• pp.49-68
• /
• 2015

In recent years in China, corresponding to a shift in consumption pattern from household basics to greater expenditure on quality of life, new franchising opportunities arise. Although the franchising prospect in China is promising, Korean companies aiming at franchising into China need to be aware of the legal framework for commercial franchise in China as this will have direct impact on their business expansion. Where franchising activities involve trade mark licence, Chinese Franchise Regulations require such trade mark licence agreement to be regulated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Chinese Trademark Law. Furthermore where one party fails to perform his obligation and it impacts purpose of the contract seriously, the other party could avoid the contract in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Chinese Contract Law. To launch franchising business successfully in China, Korean companies do market research sufficiently before they may commence franchise business. Korean franchisor must register with local authorities in China by own name, and make Chinese partner take charge of management of the distribution network and invitation of franchisee partners.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.1-20
• /
• 2017

The industrial technology (including trade secrets), which is commonly understood as systematic and applied technical knowledge, can be transferred to third parties by contracting for the transfer of technology or by granting of a licence. The activity of industrial espionage, due to the gradual increase of the economic interests of intellectual property, is displaying intensively in order to gain advanced technology information. With our outstanding high technology, but compared to the level of the advanced countries, the technical protection systems, the legal protection measures and the systematic management thereof may still be insufficient. Our industrial technology outflow abroad, due to the vulnerability to the security control system in our country, has been increasing since the 2000. Computer software and SNS, such as smart devices, appear as a rapid change in the technical information environment. In order to minimize the dead zone of a new industrial security, the country's organic activity is being conducted. In 2006, Industrial Technology Outflow Prevention and Protection Law was enacted, which emphasized the responsibilities of the country. In this paper for the economic entity's efforts to prevent technology leakage oversea, I have looked to how the industrial technology can be protected in terms of national security and economic benefits of our enterprises. To solve the above-mentioned problems hereof, Korean government should willingly establish a reliable legal system for supporting to enterprise's operations, and Korean companies should autonomously introduce a synthetic technology protection system and incorporate the confidentiality clauses in an international transfer of technology agreement with third parties.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.487-538
• /
• 2013

It is the most critical issue in recent international intellectual property licence disputes to decide the applicable laws to the license contracts. As Korea and the European Union(EU) reached free trade agreement(FTA), and the EU-Korea FTA entered into force on July 1, 2011, the FTA has boosted social, economic, cultural exchanges between the two. As a result of the increased transactions in those sectors, legal disputes are also expected to grow. This situation calls for extensive research and understanding of the choice of law principles applicable to international intellectual property license contracts in the EU. To decide the laws applicable to issues arising from international intellectual property license contracts disputes, the characterization of those issues is necessary for the purpose of applying private international law principles to them. In terms of characterization, intellectual property license contracts fall within contractual matters. In the EU, the primary rule of choice of law principles in contractual obligations is the Rome I Regulation. Because the choice of law rules, such as private international law principles, the Rome Convention(1980), and the Rome I Regulation, differ in the time of application, it is essential to clarify the time factor of related contracts. For example, the Rome I Regulation applies to contracts which were concluded as from December 17, 2009. Although party autonomy in international contracts disputes is generally allowed, if there is no choice of law agreement between the parties to the contracts, the objective test rule of private international law doctrine could be the best option. Following this doctrine, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 1 provides the governing law rules based on the types of contracts, but there is no room for intellectual property license contracts. After all, as the rule for governing law of those contracts, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 2 should be applied and if there are countries which are more closely connected to the contracts under the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 3, the laws of those countries become the governing laws of the contracts. Nevertheless, if it is not possible to decide the applicable laws to the license contracts, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 4 should be applied in the last resort and the laws of the countries which are the most closely connected to the contracts govern the license contracts. Therefore, this research on the laws applicable to intellectual property license contracts under the Rome I Regulation suggests more systematic and effective solutions for future disputes in which Korea and the EU countries play the significant role as the connecting factors in the conflict of laws rules. Moreover, it helps to establish comprehensive and theoretical understanding of applying the Korean Private International Law to multifarious choice-of-law cases.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.1
• /
• pp.27-45
• /
• 2017

A new phenomenon in recent trade is the rising interest in the trade of product production and manufacturing methods themselves, unlike in the past, when the interest was focused on the trade of tangible goods. That is, technology is considered as the object of trade instead of a simple element of production as "technology itself is commercialized". The broad meaning of technology encompasses all the property of knowledge with economic value. Its narrow meaning refers to technology used to produce and manufacture goods. Technologies have features such as no forms, heterogeneity, accumulation of value and extinction of right. The trade of technology commands different styles and content from that of tangible goods due to their unique characteristics; and accordingly, has various risk factors. In other words, technology can be traded in various ways according to commercial objectives including licensing, technical partnership, and joint investment in addition to general trading. The specific forms of technology transfer strategies depend on the purposes and situations between corporations. In case of technical trade with any form, the parties should be cautious about the following practical aspects: First, the contract should clearly define the scope and transfer method of technology. It is a very important matter how the provider of technology will provide the user of technology with abstract technology with no substantiality. Second, a monopoly on technology recognized as intellectual property rights is granted to their inventors for some periods of time, but anyone can have access to that technology after the term of existence. Thus, it is important to check the terms of existence of a patent as well as the terms of contract. Third, the user of technology should fulfill his confidentiality obligation to prevent the technology of the provider from being leaked to a third party unjustly. Fourth, the provider of technology should make a contribution to the successful implementation of the technology by the user as well as provide the licensed technology. Finally, a model contract is recommended to minimizing the legal hiatus of complex technology transfer trade when concluding a contract.