• 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.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.83-91
• /
• 2007

This study tries to provide concept on establishment of CM license basis, CM selection procedure and CM contract documents through a comparative study of CM services in several CM contract documents in the America. This results of study are summarized as follows; Establishment of basis on the work scopes and legal license of CM company. Establishment of CM selection and contract procedure. Preparation of CM contract documents. Preparation of CM manual.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.93-112
• /
• 2004

A license under UCITA(Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act) which represents the first comprehensive uniform computer information licensing law is not fundamentally rooted in intellectual property law such as patent or copyright law. A license under UCITA is simply a commercial contract, dependent wholly on the parties' ability to enter into a normal, commercial contract, just as a contract of sale or lease is simply and wholly a commercial contract. However, intellectual property rights may be licensed in a contract subject to UCITA. UCITA may not be used to vary or extend informational rights that are intellectual property rights, and expressly recognizes preemption by copyright, patent, or other federal intellectual property law in Section 105(b). Like the law of sales and leases, in general, the right to contract is constrained by principles of unconscionability, good faith and fair dealing, UCITA has an additional restraint, an express power for a court to deny enforcement of a provision in a licensing contract that violates fundamental public policy. This public policy defense is unique in UCITA. An essential purpose of this defense is to give courts some latitude in reconciling commercial licensing law with the principles of intellectual property law. Most intellectual property law is federal, and UCITA expressly recognizes the preemptive effect of that federal law. But the public policy defense gives courts an additional power to consider intellectual property principles purely within the context commercial law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.145-167
• /
• 2007

Digital goods are defined as intangible and non-physical goods, composed of a combination of digital signals, electronically represented as 0 and 1. They are also called as digital products, electronic transmissions, information goods, digital contents, computer information, etc. Digital goods are now traded both domestically and internationally as well as on-line and off-line. Korean government revised the Basic Law on Foreign Trade to include digital goods and services as the scope of foreign trade in 2001. Trade volume of digital goods are increasing in Korea. The supply chains of digital goods from producing the components to selling globally to consumers are different from conventional physical goods. Mostly, digital goods are traded on the license basis rather than ownership contract. End User License Agreements(EULAs), such as shrink-wrap, click- wrap, or browser-wrap licenses are very popular in online transactions. Unlike conventional physical goods. the breach of license contract is closely linked with the infringement of intellectual property rights. Digitalized intellectual property is easy to copy and transmit in the cyber space. In cases of legal disputes from the breach of license contract, commercial arbitration or on-line alternative dispute resolutions(ADRs) are regarded as better approach to solve them rather than court sues. For promoting more secure and reliable international trade of digital goods. arbitration clauses should be included in most of license contracts.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.46 no.6
• /
• pp.225-238
• /
• 2021

This study analyzed the recent precedents of the Korean Supreme Court's Royalty and License fee on this issue and presented implications for future taxation of Royalty and License fee and digital content imports related to reproduction rights. If the price related to imported goods and the price not related to them are combined, it is necessary to revise the statutes to supplement the allocation method of royalty and license fee. In addition, if there is an agreement or a back contract for intellectual property rights through the headquarters or branch office other than the trading party, a method of inducing the importer to voluntarily report it when reporting imports should be considered. Whether Royalty and License fee is taxed or not must be determined after examining the various contract details and circumstances of the transaction.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.321-351
• /
• 2004

According to increase of Franchise Agreements, troubles related to those agreements and trading acts occur frequently. As Franchise system had come from Western countries, franchise agreement troubles tend to international disputes. In fact, those parties entered into a franchise agreement prefer arbitration to lawsuit as a dispute resolution system because arbitration is easy to risk-management for cost and time. The essential conditions for Franchise agreements are as follows ; for Franchise to grant Intellectual Properties to Franchisee, to give an impression of the same company between Franchise and Franchisee, to control and support Franchisee, for Franchisee to be an independent merchant, and to pay Franchiser license fee. Because Franchise Agreement is also based on liberty of contract, Franchise and Franchisee could enter into any kind of agreement. However, Franchiser can make an unfair agreement abusing a position of advantage. This paper check those unfair terms and conditions in Franchise agreement. Once they enter into an agreement, they should fulfil their contract. In case of trouble on performing the contract, both of them have to discuss to solve that trouble faithfully. But, they enter into either lawsuit or arbitration in accordance with agreement when they can't reach a decision in general. Specially, which is the most popular dispute resolution hands in case of Intellectual Property License agreement. General international Franchise Agreements have arbitration terms, but there is other case such as separate Arbitration Agreement if the want, which is separate from Franchise License agreement, so even though Franchise License agreement is invalidated, Arbitration agreement continues to exist, This paper reviews Franchise system and the terms of arbitration in Franchise agreement.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.125-139
• /
• 2004

In this digital environment, license contracting and technical protection measure are being used by copyright holders as a means to restrict the rights of information users. The study reviewed the conflicting relationship between the copyright law and the contract law for digital resources the use of which is based on license contracting, and investigated the legal interpretations of the conflicting relationship between the two. And then based on the analysis of IF LA's position on copyright in the digital environment, the study suggested the expected role of librarians to cope with the technological overrides of copyright rules and to expand the rights of information users.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.73
• /
• pp.1-20
• /
• 2017

There are many safeguards and measures available regulating the protection of a trademark and its registered holder, however, the protection of a licensee in a trademark license agreement is also important for protection of a intellectual property. Therefore, there are several measures in place for the protection of licensees' interests in Chinese trademark law. Article 43(3) of the Chinese Trademark Law rules a licensor who licenses others to use his registered trademark shall submit the trademark licensing to the trademark office for file, and the trademark office shall announce the trademark licensing to public. Without filing, the trademark licensing shall not be used against a bona fide third party. It means a licensee can not use an unrecorded license with the relevant trademark authority against third parties - essentially, this means that a licensee should insist on having their trademark license agreements recorded against the relevant trademark authority, so that a licensee's interests are protected as against the assignees, licensees and other types of third parties. Otherwise a third party in good faith can use the registered trademark legally against a licensee even though a trademark license agreement between a licensor and licensee is still valid.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.673-698
• /
• 2016

This study tries to conduct a systematic analysis on whether adding up the royalties and license fees or not in measuring the taxable amount of tariff. We have confirmed that three main criteria to decide whether it is yes or not are non-inclusion, relatedness and condition of sale. We also have realized that whether satisfying a condition of sale or not depends on license agreement, sales contract, special relationship and so on. Furthermore, we have made case studies of bonded factory, film's domestic distribution, exempt royalty and license fee, price for exclusive use of relevant technology, retroactive application of price change and strict interpretation. Based on the case studies we have derived the following conclusions: First, the royalties and license fees only actually paid to the licensors may be added to taxable amount. Second, the royalties and license fees incurred after the imported goods are made into domestic goods may not be added up. Third, the royalties and license fees paid as a price for use may not be added up. Fourth, the analogical interpretation of relevant codes is not accepted.

• ETRI Journal
• /
• v.25 no.6
• /
• pp.423-436
• /
• 2003

This paper describes our design of a contents distribution framework that supports transparent distribution of digital contents on the Internet as well as copyright protection of participants in the contents distribution value chain. Copyright protection must ensure that participants in the distribution channel get the royalties due to them and that purchasers use the contents according to usage rules. It must also prevent illegal draining of digital contents. To design a contents distribution framework satisfying the above requirements, we first present four digital contents distribution models. On the basis of the suggested distribution models, we designed a contract system for distribution of royalties among participants in the contents distribution channel, a license mechanism for enforcement of contents usage to purchasers, and both a packaging mechanism and a secure client system for prevention of illegal draining of digital contents.