• 디자인학연구
• /
• 제17권4호
• /
• pp.27-36
• /
• 2004

지적재산권보호를 위한 국제협약은 범세계적이거나 지역적차원에서 이미 한 세기 전부터 존재하여 왔다. 우리나라도 국제협약에 적극적으로 가입하고 있다. 이후 국제협약을 어기고 모방사례가 계속 발생시 국가 신인도 문제뿐만 아니라 국제 무역 시장에서 활동하는데 어려움을 겪게 될 상황이 예견된다. 이에 따라 포장디자인의 지적재산권제도의 국내외 현황조사와 모방사례를 분석하고 지적재산권제도의 이해도와 관심도 연구조사를 통하여 포장디자인의 지적재산권 보호제도의 중요성을 인식시키고 WTO체제하에서의 패키지디자인 지적재산권 보호 방안을 연구하는데 본 논문은 주력하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 인트라넷을 이용한 기업의 디자인 정보공유시스템 디자인 구축과정을 롯데백화점 디자인실의 사례를 통해 살펴보았다. 기업의 인트라넷의 온라인시스템을 구축할 때의 요구사항과 필요기능을 제시하였고, 핵심기능에 대한 구현을 제시하였다. 본 연구의 목적은 새로운 개념의 정립이나 기반의 발견에 있는 것이 아니라, 개방성에 의해 사용이 편리한 인터넷 환경을 조직의 기반 디자인 정보공유시스템 구축에 적용하는 인트라넷 개념을 사례를 통하여 구현의 효과와 구축방법을 제안함에 있다. 이를 위해 본 논문에서는 패키지디자인의 지적재산권보호제도의 보호방안을 마련하기 위한 보호제도 현황분석과 분쟁사례연구를 통한 분석과 각종 통계자료 제시, 국내외 패키지디자인의 지적재산권 침해 모방사례 분석 및 소비들과 관련 패키지디자인 업무 종사자들의 실증적 설문조사 분석을 통하여 실질적인 보호 방안을 연구하고 제시하고 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.167-187
• /
• 2007

As Korea has reached a free trade agreement with the United States of America, it is required to provide an appropriate procedure to ".kr" domain name disputes based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP). Currently, Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee(IDRC) established under Article 16 of the Act on Internet Address Resources provides the dispute resolution proceedings to resolve ".kr" domain name disputes. While the IDRC's proceeding is similar to the UDRP administrative proceeding in procedural aspects, the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy that is established by the IDRC and that applies to disputes involving ".kr" domain names is very different from the UDRP for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) in substantial aspects. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement(KORUS FTA), it is expected that either the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy to be amended to adopt the UDRP or the IDRC to examine the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy in order to harmonize it with the principles established in the UDRP. It is a common practice of cybersquatters to warehouse a number of domain names without any active use of these domain names after their registration. The Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides that the complainant may request to transfer or delete the registration of the disputed domain name if the registrant registered, holds or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This provision lifts the complainant's burden of proof to show the respondent's bad faith because the complainant is only required to prove one of the three bad faiths which are registration in bad faith, holding in bad faith, or use in bad faith. The aforementioned resolution procedure is different from the UDRP regime which requires the complainant, in compliance with paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the complainant carries heavy burden of proof under the UDRP. The IDRC should deny the complaint if the respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The UDRP sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which if proved by the respondent, shall be evidence of the respondent's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides only a general provision regarding the respondent's legitimate rights or interests, the respondent can be placed in a very week foundation to be protected under the Policy. It is therefore recommended for the IDRC to adopt the three UDRP circumstances to guide how the respondent can demonstrate his/her legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. In accordance with the KORUS FTA, the Korean Government is required to provide online publication to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain name registrants. Cybersquatters often provide inaccurate contact information or willfully conceal their identity to avoid objection by trademark owners. It may cause unnecessary and unwarranted delay of the administrative proceedings. The respondent may loss the opportunity to assert his/her rights or legitimate interests in the domain name due to inability to submit the response effectively and timely. The respondent could breach a registration agreement with a registrar which requires the registrant to submit and update accurate contact information. The respondent who is reluctant to disclose his/her contact information on the Internet citing for privacy rights and protection. This is however debatable as the respondent may use the proxy registration service provided by the registrar to protect the respondent's privacy.