• 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.

• 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 Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.185-209
• /
• 2013

With the broader range of information and communications technology, of which fashion is a foundational medium, to analyze fashion as an information technology in order to better understand the industry's desire for intellectual property protection, popular resistance to such protection, and the most efficacious balance between them in terms of creative expression. It is, therefore to be focused on cultural and historical reasons for the limited degree of intellectual property protection extended in the past to certain categories of human creativity, including fashion design. So, the question of why some tension still exists between creators and consumers of fashion, how information theory can contribute to an explanation for that tension, and what role law can play in its resolution with Louboutin case and Levi case. Consumers and designers alike are better served by promotion of fair competition, lower litigation costs, and the inventive synergy of the fashion industry. Louboutin shows the comfortable, respectful limits of trademark law, while Levi illustrates the dangerous, overreaching deference that a few circuits have granted to famous marks. The Supreme Court could clarify the standard for dilution claims, requiring that a junior mark be "identical or nearly identical" or even "significantly similar" to a senior mark. Courts should need a deference in making dilution determinations and can choose to make this factor quite subjective with the highest degree of similarity.