• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2011

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation's competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement" in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China's court. However, considering the criticism of China's passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it's very unlikely they'll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO's Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it's being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.455-470
• /
• 1993

In recent years, the intellectual property rights (IPR) are increasingly becoming trade goods and the subject of international trade negotiations. During the past decades, intellectual properties earned critical importance for economic development in both developed and developing countries. Developed countries, headed by the United States, that recognize the economic value of the IPR in the world market are aggressively seeking for universal protection of IPR throughout the world. Intellectual properties have unique qualities that distinguish them from other tangible goods. Most importantly, they are public goods created on the basis of knowledge and information accumulated throughout human history and shared by different cultures. However, there is a growing tendency that the quality of public goods are being etched away as the property concept in IPR expands. In this paper, I discuss how copyright and patent laws incorporated the concept of property right as natural right to one's intellectual creations in early formation of the laws in Europe. I argue that copyright law and patent law are the historical products resulting from political, economic, and ideological factors interacting in a certain society. A history of copyright and patent points to that the intellectual property rights as natural lights of authors and inventors as argued by developed countries in international disputes, are not universal, but unique historical products. Copyright and patent laws have been shaped and developed as regulatory measures by governments to promote and control industries by providing authors and inventors with monopoly incentives. Since property right was used as a regulatory device it was restricted. This is to enhance the distribution of knowledge and information rather than to ensure the property right as an absolute right.

• 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 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 Korean Society of Industrial and Systems Engineering
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.17-30
• /
• 2015

Technology-oriented national R&D programs produce intellectual property as their final result. Patents, as typical industrial intellectual property, are therefore considered an important factor when evaluating the outcome of R&D programs. Among the main components of patent evaluation, in particular, the patent right quality is a key component constituting patent value, together with marketability and usability. Current approaches for patent right quality evaluation rely mostly on intrinsic knowledge of patent attorneys, and the recent rapid increase of national R&D patents is making expert-based evaluation costly and time-consuming. Therefore, this study defines a hierarchy of patent right quality and then proposes how to quantify the evaluation process of patent right quality by combining text mining and regression analysis. This study will contribute to understanding of the systemic view of the patent right quality evaluation, as well as be an efficient aid for evaluating patents in R&D program assessment processes.

• 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.34 no.1
• /
• pp.51-74
• /
• 2024

Korea continues to invest in the IT industry and is currently regarded as one of the five major powerhouses in the field of intellectual property. However, it is evaluated that this status is only limited, and the level of intellectual property protection and dispute resolution does not reach a level commensurate with the status of one of the five major intellectual property powers. To address these problems, the Korean government has enacted the Arbitration Industry Promotion Act in 2017, which aims to strengthen national competitiveness by fostering the arbitration system as an industry and provide systematic support so that the arbitration industry can become a future growth engine. In addition, in accordance with Article 3 of the 「Arbitration Industry Promotion Act」, the Minister of Justice must establish "the Basic Plan for Arbitration Industry Promotion" every 5 years. Great efforts must be put into establishing an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) system at the KCAB for five years from 2024 to 2028, the Second Basic Plan for the Promotion of the Arbitration Industry period. Under these circumstances, this study presents implications and improvement measures for the development of the intellectual property-related arbitration system to protect Korea's intellectual property rights and contribute to more active intellectual property creation. In particular, this study proposes a plan to build an one-stop digital platform for KCAB to implement an efficient ODR system.

• Archives of design research
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.27-36
• /
• 2004

The protection of intellectual property right in international conventions are worldwide or regional areas already exists a century. Therefore, our country is positive affiliated with international conventions. After that time, such as a violation of international convention and an example of imitations are continually that we prognosticate the international trade market activities was difficult not only became an issue of country credit risk. At this point, the major purpose of this study make an analysis of both paralleled with the case study follow an example and the comprehension with concerned about recognition of intellectual property right. In additionally, it stands a plan of package design protections under the WTO systems. This study have carried out a theoretical and practical analysis of intellectual property right and statistical analysis through the inside and outside of the country packaging design study and a case study of troubles with intellectual property. Besides, it is accomplish the purpose of the study that established exploratory study survey about inside and outside of the country packaging design infringement case study and relative package design industry employees with consumptions real research. I hoped that this study will be a foundation on which packaging, design industry protections to intellectual property right.

• Journal of Agricultural Extension & Community Development
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.23-47
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study was to analyze intellectual property right status and brand origin of traditional liquor. The data were derived from the brand of 385 traditional liquor species in Korea. The major results of this study were as follows: 1) The management types of traditional liquor were classified into three categories, namely; individual 27(0.74)%, stock company 304(78%) and corporation or union 38(9.8%). 2) Among 385 traditional liquor species, 102(26%) got the trademark registrations and 129(34%) were in the process of trademark applications, while 154(40%) were unregistered brands. 3) The origin of 187(48.6%) brands used the material names such as fruits, rices, trees, roots and flowers, while 176(45.6%) brand used proper noun such as mountain, distinction, rivers etc.. 4) The designation certification status of traditional skill possessor according to national and local autonomous entity were; intangible cultural assets 42 people, master craftsman 28 persons, and provincial intellectual property 16 persons.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.60
• /
• pp.47-77
• /
• 2013

The way for seller to procure the goods for selling is to produce the goods at his own factory and to buy the manufactured goods from the other company. In order to produce the goods for selling the seller have to obtain the resource from the domestic company or overseas. In the middle of producing the goods to sell, seller may breach the right of a third party based on intellectual property rights. That is to say, seller may use the machine that has not itself been patented and use a process which has been patented by a third party. Seller may manufacture the goods which themselves are subject to the third party industrial property rights. Nowadays it is stressed the importance of intellectual property rights such as a patent, brand, and design. These factors consist of the core elements of the competitiveness of the goods. Many embedded software have been used in the various sector. So the disputes regarding to the intellectual property rights is gradually increasing in number. Article 42 of CISG defines the seller's delivery obligations and liabilities in respect to third party intellectual property rights and claims. It contains a special rule for this similar kind of defective in title, which tries to provide an proper solution to the complex problems caused by such rights and claims in international transactions. When seller will apply this clause to the business fields, there are several points to which seller should give attention. First, Intellectual property is general terms in intangible property rights, encompassing both copyright and industrial property. Which matter fall within the scope of intellectual property? The scope of intellectual property can be inferred from the relevant international conventions, which are based on broad international consensus. Second, Article 42 of CISG governs the relationship between the seller and the buyer, that is to say, questions of who has to bear the risk of third party intellectual property rights. The existence of such intellectual property rights, the remedies available and the question of acquiring goods free of an encumbrances in good faith are outside the scope of the CISG. The governing law regarding to the abovementioned matters is needed.