• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2019

The fashion industry has been growing in Korea, but the law and the dispute resolution have been less than effective so far. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, ending up with designers and fashion companies relying on their trademarks to protect their design. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems and leads to resorting to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, however, are emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry should sincerely consider a self-regulating program in which its members-both fashion designers and corporations alike-can resolve disputes in a manner mutually beneficial to all parties in order to preserve the industry's growth, solidarity, and esteem. From 2016, KCAB's Fashion Industry Dispute Advisory Committee (FIDAC) for ADR has promoted a better solution for disputes in the fashion industry. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to procuring innovation in fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an alternate dispute resolution process. The ADR process can mitigate the uncertainty created by relevant legislation or any other disputes, which could result in shying away from any business in the fashion industry.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.19-47
• /
• 2015

International arbitration is an increasingly popular means of alternative dispute resolution for cross-border commercial transactions. The primary advantage of international arbitration over court litigation is enforceability. An international arbitration award is enforceable in most countries in the world. Especially, statistics indicate of ASEAN such as Malaysia and Singapore that the vast majority of defeated companies comply with the terms of international arbitral awards against them or settle soon after the award is rendered. Unlike Malaysia and Singapore, in Indonesia, there are several grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award including where both the nature of the dispute and the agreement to arbitrate do not meet the requirements set out in the Arbitration Law. Because Indonesia does not acknowledge decisions of foreign courts, theoretically they could enforce an international arbitral award which was set aside by the court in the seat of arbitration. This paper introduces the legal system and cases of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in ASEAN, especially Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Secondly, by comparing their law and cases, the paper emphasized the international suitability and global fitness in involved in recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.51-66
• /
• 2016

This paper considers how various types of patent disputes can be more efficiently resolved through arbitration, rather than litigation. For this analysis, it takes three types of patent disputes as a control sample - contractual disputes, infringement disputes and FRAND disputes - and assess how these disputes can be better resolved through arbitration in terms of several criteria, namely, the suitability of the decision-makers, the number of forums in which disputes have to separately decided and enforced, procedural flexibility and confidentiality. The paper takes into consideration that certain types of patent disputes, such as infringement disputes and FRAND disputes are unlikely to be subject to pre-existing arbitration agreements. In these types of disputes, parties may make the decision between arbitration and litigation based on strategic and tactical concerns, rather than legal ones. The paper concludes that, given this limitation, it is not possible to categorically state whether arbitration is more suitable than litigation for resolving patent disputes. The most sensible course to follow in adopting arbitration for patent disputes is for legal advisors to be familiar with the intricate benefits and pitfalls of arbitration in patent disputes, and to actively consider referring a dispute to arbitration over litigation after a dispute has arisen.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.33-51
• /
• 2022

According to the CISG, there are no special regulations for a reasonable period of time among the obligations to notify the contractual suitability of the goods. As a result, many disputes arise in 'notification within a reasonable period' despite being the most important treaty in practice in defining the obligation to notify nonconformities according to the suitability of goods for each case. Regarding the interpretation of Article 39 of the CISG, various judgments and arbitration decisions are being made in each country for a reasonable period to notify that the goods are not suitable for the contract.There are criticisms that these various views are too harsh on the buyer in the buyer's obligation to notify.It is important to create a unified principle because courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of this Convention interpret in various ways the reasonable period of violation of the contract of goods stipulated in the Convention. Since most of the international commodity trading transactions around the world are regulated by the CISG, it is necessary to analyze and interpret cases in which this Convention is applied in court or arbitral tribunal of each country to derive a unified principle.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.91-107
• /
• 2018

This study considers the activation of the Asia Pacific Maritime Arbitration Center(APMAC) established for the first time in South Korea. This research investigates the suitability of arbitration for maritime disputes through literature review, as well as the importance and expectations of the establishment of the APMAC. In order to activate the APMAC, maritime arbitration rules must be established. Second, a cooperative body should be established between the courts and related institutions. Third, related institutions need to creat a short term and long term promotion plan. Fourth, the APMAC should appoint professional arbitrators in the maritime field. Fifth, an educational system should be established for new arbitrators. Finally, APMAC should link to universities for research activities.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.87-105
• /
• 2015

Intellectual property law is slowly fighting to keep pace with the rapid growth of the fashion industry. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, even in the US and other top fashion nations, forcing designers and fashion companies to rely on their trademarks to protect their work. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems as witnessed in a recent Christian Louboutin case, leading the parties to resort to Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution(ODR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, are increasingly emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry (CFDA in the US case) should sincerely consider a self-regulating program in which its members, both fashion designers and corporations alike, can resolve disputes in a manner mutually beneficial to all parties in order to preserve the industry's growth, solidarity, and esteem In particular, for the US fashion industry, the ongoing Innovative Design Protection and Privacy Prevention Act(IDPPPA) anti-counterfeit legislation could have caused a chilling effect against innovation. New designers with no name and less resources who could normally flourish producing inspired-by designs may find themselves subject to copyright infringement legislation since the IDPPPA may expand the protection of established designers and brands with more resources. This fear and its implication could be solved by the fashion industry itself since fashion experts know best how to handle these fast-paced issues arising in the field. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to protecting innovation within fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an ADR process. This can mitigate the uncertainty created by the IDPPPA or any other legislation from elsewhere, which could result in a shying away from experimentation with inspired-by designs.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.137-160
• /
• 2021

The customized cosmetics preparation management qualification system was implemented in March 2020, and it served to create jobs by developing professionals and vitalizing the cosmetics business. However, various problems such as high examination fees, suitability of questions, and utilization in industries are emerging. This paper attempts to prevent disputes that the system can cause and suggest ways to improve it by researching customized cosmetics, the industry status, and comparing foreign cosmetics laws. There is a kind of opinion that laws should be eased for this industry and the other opinion that expertise is necessary in this field because of safety. The system now has adverse effects due to a failure to adjust the difficulty of the exam. Cosmetics are not prescription-based, so they are routinely used. However, some toxic ingredients can cause side effects if they do not conform with certain standards. Also, it is difficult for a case to lead to lawsuits because most consumer damages related to cosmetics are individual. In addition, as e-commerce develops, there is a growing possibility of seeing more consumer damages. If safety and distribution issues, which experts are concerned about, escalate, the private dispute settlement system (among the ADR systems) should be activated as a resolution method.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.95-107
• /
• 2019

The ICSID arbitral tribunal shall determine the suitability of investors in accordance with the Article 25 of the ICSID convention and the investment or investor's provisions under the BIT. The eligibility of investors has an important role in establishing jurisdiction under international investment disputes. Therefore, this study draws implications on issues related to investor qualification, focusing on ICSID arbitration. The investor's nationality shall be taken into consideration in determining whether the investor is eligible. The criteria for determining the nationality of a corporate investor include the place of incorporation, main business location, and substantial ownership or control. The criterion of the place of incorporation that is used in a number of BIT have the problem of protecting investors from third countries not involved in the BIT. So, in recent years it is stipulated that the actual economic activity or the main business location as well as the place of incorporation criteria. And this problem is complemented by the denial of benefit clause. When determining whether a local corporation is controlled by foreigner in the host state it considers the shareholding rate, voting rights, and the exercise of managerial rights. There is a tendency to recognize shareholder's right to petition. Thus the same damage should not cause problems such as duplicate repayment or double reimbursement between the shareholders and the company. Unexpected problems can arise if the scope of investments and investors is broadly specified in the BIT. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the scope of investment to be protected.