• 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.

• 한국디지털정책학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2004.05a
• /
• pp.53-67
• /
• 2004

On the base of IT growth, competition between countries for preoccupation of digital content market is keen. And it is prospected that the development of digital content industry will be more rapid with the base of telecommunication infra-structure(for example internet, digital broadcasting) which is the main channel for distribution of digital content. The bill of "Act for Development of Online Digital Content Industry", has passed the national assembly jan, 2002, and "Draft Blueprint for Developing Online Digital Content Industry(2003$\sim$2005)" was made on the base on that law feb, 2003. And we can find measures for protect the digital content manufacture in the laws such as "Literary Property Law", "Trademarks Law" and "law for prevention of unfair competition". On this study we suggested three measures to make digital content industry more profitable by the method of research of related law and industry survey.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.53-85
• /
• 2022

Small and medium-sized enterprises ("SMEs") are vulnerable to trade secret misappropriation. Korea's legislation for the protection of SMEs' trade secrets and provision of civil, criminal, and administrative remedies includes the SME Technology Protection Act, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Industrial Technology Protection Act, the Mutually Beneficial Cooperation Act, and the Subcontracting Act. Among these acts, the revised SME Technology Protection Act of 2018 introduced the "administrative technology misappropriation investigation system" to facilitate a rapid resolution of SMEs' technology misappropriation disputes. On September 27, 2021, Korea's Ministry of SMEs announced that it had reached an agreement to resolve the dispute between Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samyeong Machinery through the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system. However, not until 3 years and a few months passed since the introduction of the system could it be used to resolve an SME's technology misappropriation dispute with a large corporation. So there arose a question on the usefulness of the system. Therefore, we conducted a comparative legal analysis of Korea's laws enacted to protect trade secrets of SMEs and to address technology misappropriation, focusing on their legislative purpose, protected subject matter, types of misappropriation, and legal remedies. Then we analyzed the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system and the cases where this system was applied. We developed a proposal to enhance the usefulness of the system. The expert interviews of 4 attorneys who are experienced in the management of the system to check the practical value of the proposal. Our analysis shows that the lack of compulsory investigation and criminal sanctions is the fundamental limitation of the system. We propose revising the SME Technology Protection Act to provide correction orders, criminal sanctions, and compulsory investigation. We also propose training professional workforces to conduct digital forensics, enabling terminated SMEs to utilize the system, and assuring independence and fairness of the mediation and arbitration of the technology misappropriation disputes.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.21 no.12
• /
• pp.752-758
• /
• 2020

A professor is an employed as a member of a college, and his invention is transferred to the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (IACF). A professor often reveals his inventions in a thesis or at a symposium before the IACF applies for a patent. Such self-disclosure could be in violation of the confidential responsibility. This study analyzes the number of patent invalidation trials as well as self-revealed patent applications raised in connection with the confidential responsibility. This study also scrutinizes cases to figure out whether the confidential responsibility was breached depending on the time of the self-disclosure both before and after the succession of an invention. In addition, side effects that could accompany self-disclosure are investigated. In the case of the self-disclosure by the professor, an invention to which the college belongs fails to secure patent right or it is hard to obtain comprehensive right. Even if rights were secured, it could be invalidated. Furthermore, they could infringe the confidential responsibility of employees under the Invention Promotion Act, and also could contravene the confidential responsibility specified by the Enforcement Decree of the unfair Competition Prevention if the succession of the invention is confirmed. Therefore, colleges should manage self-disclosure of employee invention and take appropriate action.