• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.24 no.10
• /
• pp.225-232
• /
• 2019

The trademark dilution of famous marks as a kind of unfair competition practice is defined and regulated in Article 2 (1) (c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Unfair Competition Prevention Act), which was newly established according to the amendment of the Act on February 3, 2001. Famous trademarks are universally protected in all around the world, which are likewise protected in the Republic of Korea by the Unfair Competition Prevention Actin line with such international trends. In order to establish the trademark dilution of famous marks, it is necessary to have the following characteristics: (1) high reputation of the original mark, (2) use of identical or similar markscompared to the original mark, (3) occurrence of blurring of discrimination or tarnishment of reputation; in particular, with respect to the degree of proof of 'blurring of discrimination or tarnishment of reputation', which is a constituent requirement of the trademark dilution of famous marks, it is reasonable to interpret the trademark dilution as concrete endangerment offense, neither harm-based offense nor abstract endangerment offense, and thus it should be considered that the crime is established if a specific realistic risk of blurring of discrimination or tarnishment of reputation occurs. Furthermore, in relation to the specific criteria of 'blurring of discrimination or tarnishment of reputation', it is necessary to comprehensively judge the degree of individual behavior in specific matters as a normative factor as well as the psychosocial viewpoint of the general public.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.409-433
• /
• 2005

The lighting equipments industry in Korea has been characterized as high-costly and low-efficient, and has been decreasing in its international competitiveness since the birth of the WTO. The industry has been exposed to a harsh competition with large quantities of cheap imports from China and has been influenced by the unfair trade of Chinese enterprises. Korea Trade Commission and other related government bodies in Korea are required to enforce import regulations against Chinese products and investigate thoroughly unfair trade practices including false indication of country of origin, infringement of intellectual property rights and dumping.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.177-219
• /
• 2016

A commercial advertisement is not only a way of competition but also a medium of communication. Thus, it is under the constitutional protection of the freedom of business (article 15 of the Constitution) as well as the freedom of press [article 21 (1) of the Constitution]. In terms of the freedom of business or competition, it should be noted that an unfair advertising (false or misleading advertisement) can be regulated as an unfair competition, while any restraint on advertising other than unfair one might be doubted as an unjustifiable restraint of trade. In terms of the freedom of press or communication, it is important that article 21 (2) of the Constitution forbids any kind of (prior) censorship, and the Constitutional Court applies this restriction even to commercial advertising. In this article, the applicability of these schemes to advertising of the so-called learned professions, especially physician, are to be examined, and some proposals for the reformation of the current regulatory regime are to be made. Main arguments of this article can be summarized as follows: First, the current regime which requires advance review of physician advertising as prescribed in article 56 (2) no. 9 of Medical Act should be reformed. It does not mean that the current interpretation of article 21 of the Constitution is agreeable. Though a commercial advertising is a way of communication and can be protected by article 21 (1) of the Constitution, it should not be under the prohibition of censorship prescribed by article 21 (2) of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court adopts the opposite view, however. It is doubtful that physician advertising needs some prior restraint, also. Of course, there exists severe informational asymmetry between physicians and patients and medical treatment might harm the life and health of patients irrevocably, so that medical treatment can be discerned from other services. It is civil and criminal liability for medical malpractice and duty to inform and not regulation on physician advertising, to address these differences or problems. Advance review should be abandoned and repelled, or substituted by more unproblematic way of regulation such as an accreditation of reviewed advertising or a self-regulation preformed by physician association independently from the Ministry of Health and Welfare or any other governmental agencies. Second, the substantive criteria for unfair physician advertising also should correspond that of unfair advertising in general. Some might argue that a learned profession, especially medical practice, is totally different from other businesses. It is performed under the professional ethics and should not persue commercial interest; medical practice in Korea is governed by the National Health Insurance system, the stability of which might be endangered when commercial competition in medical practice be allowed. Medical Act as well as the condition of medical practice market do not exclude competition between physicians. The fact is quite the opposite. Physicians are competing even though under the professional ethics and obligations and all the restrictions provided by the National Health Insurance system. In this situation, regulation on physician advertising might constitute unjustifiable restraint of competition, especially a kind of entry barrier for 'new physicians.'

• Journal of Research and Publication Ethics
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.1-6
• /
• 2021

The aims of this study were to examine the causes and types of the most common and serious fraudulent authors among research misconduct, and to examine ways to reduce the mass production of unjust authors. In scientific research, it is universal and efficient to have multiple authors participate. This is because each author group consisting of a team has its own expertise, and most of them participate in research in a complementary way to maximize the research effect. However, the competition for achievements between researchers, the quantitative evaluation system of universities, and the social atmosphere of performance-oriented are tempting researchers to abandon research ethics. In this study, in relation to the research ethics of existing researchers, the contents of research ethics by a few countries such as United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia etc. and the situation in Korea was examined as well. In addition, the types and causes of domestic unfair authors in Korea were investigated intensively. In conclusion, in order to no longer produce unfair authors such as compulsory authors, honorary authors, mutually supported authors, and duplicate authors, which researchers unknowingly recognize as co-authors, reinforcement of research ethics education and national organization and system should be supported.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.345-382
• /
• 2018

Sports events are not copyrighted and sports organizer's profit from sports events is not subject to intellectual property law in our legislation. Most other countries, except for France, do not also recognize sports organizer's profit as an intellectual property right. For this reason, legal grounds protecting sports organizer's profit must be found from current law such as tort law or Unfair Competition and Trade Secret Protection Act. It is irrefutable that these laws play a significant role in protecting sports organizer's profit by imposing restrictions on taking unfair advantage of others' efforts or investment. Nevertheless, protecting sports organizer's profit through such laws has its limits because sports events and relevant information outside the protection category of intellectual property law are considered as public domain. Therefore, introduction of sports organizer's intellectual property right through legislation will serve to faithfully protect sports organizer's profit. Even countries where spectator sports industry is fully in force actively discuss the issue of introducing sports organizer's intellectual property right. Intellectual property law, like other laws, is keenly subject to international trends due to market globalization and sensitively responds to the trends. I believe that further discussions are highly required about the introduction of sports organizer's intellectual property right that properly reflects international trends.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.7
• /
• pp.76-81
• /
• 1996

독일의 독점금지관련 법제는 크게 기업의 불공정 경쟁행위를 규제하기 위하여 1909년에 제정된 부정경쟁방지법(UWG:Gesetz gegenden Unlauteren Wettbewerb, AUC:Act against Unfair Competition)과 제 2차대전 후 금융자본에 의한 기업의 카르텔과 콘체른의 성행으로 독과점의 폐해가 심해지자 독과점 규제의 실효성을 위하여 1957년 제정된 경쟁제한금지법(GWB:Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbs Beschrankungn, ARC: Act against Restraints of Competition)이다. 부정경쟁방지법은 부당한 거래거절이나 부당한 거래방해 행위, 부당한 차별적 취급 및 기만적인 광고 등 기업의 영업활동과 관련한 불공정경쟁행위 규제가 주된 목적으로서 민사절차에 의한 손해배상소송 등에서 활용되고 있으며 경쟁제한금지법과 중복되는 분야(부당한 거래거절 등)에 대하여는 행정벌의 부과를 규정하고 있어 경쟁제한금지법과 상호보완적 관계를 유지하고 있다. 따라서 본고에서는 독일의 경쟁제한금지법의 내용에 대해서만 살펴보기로 한다.

• International Area Studies Review
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.123-146
• /
• 2012

In this paper, we did on the new theory, policy, institution and legal research on the international competition order and justice society for 21st century. At first, we introduced the basic of competition law for fairness of trade in the new international market order under WTO. Secondly, we are researched on the economic approach of the competition law, market competition order and justice society in the new globalism. Third, we studied the international circumstance through the analysis of the patterns of the anti-competition practices and the regulation systems for competition order. We also reviewed the execution criteria and precedents of the fairness theory and competition laws in the USA, EU, Japan, and Korea, briefly. Finally, we presented to the alternative policies that based on our study about the new theory, policy, institution, competition law in opinion from reach the international market competition, fairness society and economic justice for 21st century under WTO.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.15
• /
• pp.169-209
• /
• 2001

As a domain name can be registered simply by filing an application for registration, disputes over the domain name between the holder of domain name and the holder of trademark increased. Since the holder of trademark who was late for registering domain name is willing to pay for the return of domain name, cybersquatters increased. Cybersqatters are not genuine users of the Internet. This article is to compare the construction of law by American Courts and by Korean Courts and to assert the creation of the law similar to the law of US as to anti-cybersqatting. American Courts applied the Trademark Act and the Anti-Dilution Act to resolve the disputes over domain name. To apply the Trademark Act, the Court required the plaintiffs to prove that the goods or the services expressed by the domain name should be identical or similar to the goods or the services represented by the trademark. However, there were many cases where the holder of domain name used it for the goods or the services irrelevant to those of the holder of trademark. Also, the Anti-Dilution Act could not successfully protect the holder of trademark from cybersquatters because it required that the trademark should be famous or distinctive. As a result, the US promulgated a new law which is designed to prohibit cybersquatters from being free of sanction by the existing laws. Korea Courts applied the Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Prohibition Act to the cases disputing domain name. Likewise in the US, Korean Courts must cope with the issue of identity of the goods or the services, and the famousness or distinctiveness of trademark. The Courts hesitate to give a winning judgement to the holder of trademark simply because the domain name of alleged violator confused the trademark. Some scholars advocate the broadening of construction of the Unfair Competition Prohibition Act to illegalize cybersquatting but it is beyond the meaning of the law. Accordingly, it is a time to make a law similar to the Anti-Cybersquatting Act of the US. The law must be a fair and reasonable compromise to resolve the collision between system of registration of domain name and the system of registration of trademark. Some commentators advocate that the registration of domain name should be examined just as the one of trademark and to facilitate it, the Patent and Trademark Office should have jurisdiction of registration of domain name. But it abandons the distinction of domain name and trademark and results in obstructing e-commerce. By adopting the Anti-Cybersqatting Act, we can prohibit it. In other cases, we get a reasonable adjustment between the holder of domain name and the holder of trademark through the Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Prohibition Act.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.126
• /
• pp.213-233
• /
• 2013

The aim of this paper is to reveal the ethical problem of insider trading. 'Insider trading' refer to obtaining information from non-public sources such as private acquaintances about trade secret, using it purposes of enhancing insider's financial advantages. And sometimes such a practice can be conducted fraudulently. Therefore, the focus of this paper will be on fairness or justice arguments against insider trading. And all kinds of discussion this paper are to focus the underlying consideration behind these arguments, that is, the underlying consideration about violation of ethical standards of fairness. First, one of these arguments argues that insider trading does necessarily involve defrauding general investors such as general employees, general stockholders. And economic power and unjust advantage of insider can be exercised to the detriment of this non-insider's interests. Second, another argument argues that insider trading undermines competition which is the principle of any free market. And insider trading is not only a complication in the free market mechanism, but also thwarts free competition which free markets depend. Third, the final argument argues that insider trading will be made something unfair about the concept of equal access to information. This argument argues, therefore, that to permit insider trading would be to set up stock market trading rules that are unfair to non-insiders.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.39-64
• /
• 2014

The object of International License Contract is technology. Technology is means to produce visible goods, which are human's intellectual creations such as Intellectual Property Right - patent, design, trademark- and Know-how. Unlike visible goods which decrease as being used, these technologies are possible to be produced expansively and develop additionally. Therefore, the way to make a contract of goods is a sales contract which transfers ownership while technology follows license contract which gives approval of use for a certain period. International license contract means that licensor has right to possess, allows licensee to use licensed technology for a fixed period and takes royalty. So there are various matters such as selection of the duration of a contract, confirmation of technology range, competition limitation, technique guidance and support, calculation of royalty, withholding tax between parties. This study examines licensor's grant of license and competition limitation. Intellectual property rights fundamentally give exclusive rights to the creator so the licensor use or dispose of his or her intellectual property rights at will. Technology transfer is possible through license contract because of this right. But licensor must exercise his or her intellectual property rights within a reasonable limit. It means, when licensor makes an unreasonable demand abusing his or her position, it is regarded as competition limitation clause and the deal itself may become null. Therefore, restraint on competition needs to be examined in detail as it influences on contract validity. Each country has their own competition laws for establishing a fair market order and inspection guide and guideline for judging whether there is any unfair act related to intellectual property rights. Judgment on intellectual property rights is subject the technology-introduced country's domestic laws and thus, contracting parties each need to precede opposite nation's domestic laws system.