• 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지
• /
• 제18권11호
• /
• pp.221-227
• /
• 2013

사이버스쿼팅은 상표와 도메인이름간 분쟁의 한 유형으로서 "상표 등 표지가 가지는 신용으로부터 이익을 얻기 위하여 부정한 목적을 가지고 상표 등 표지와 동일하거나 유사한 도메인이름을 등록, 보유, 이전, 사용하는 행위"를 말한다. 즉, 인터넷에서 사용되는 도메인이름이 선착순으로 자유롭게 등록할 수 있고, 그 중복 등록이 불가함을 악용하여 도메인이름을 선점하는 행위인 것이다. 이는 오늘날 우리 생활의 대부분이 인터넷을 중심으로 진행되는 현실임을 감안할 때, 분명히 방지되어야 하는 행위임에도 불구하고 법치주의의 사회구조를 추월하는 IT생태계의 특성상 관련된 많은 문제들이 발생하고 있다. 따라서 이 연구에서는 그동안 우리 대법원의 사이버스쿼팅 관련 판례들의 분석을 통해 관련 실무 종사자들에게 사이버스쿼팅 관련 정보를 제공하고 향후 입법적 시사점을 도출함에 연구 목적을 두었다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제15권
• /
• 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.

• 한국IT서비스학회지
• /
• 제13권3호
• /
• pp.129-148
• /
• 2014

Generally, the Internet Address Resources Act is intended to protect the public from acts of Internet "cybersquatting", a term used to describe the bad faith, abusive registration of Internet domain names. In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent, a court may consider factors such as, (1) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name, (2) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person, (3) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services, (4) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name, (5) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site, (6) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.113-131
• /
• 2011

Recently, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced the expansion of the number of generic top-level domains (gTLDs) beyond the current 22 gTLDs, and the gTLD Applicant Guidebook for ICANN's new gTLD program is now under consideration for approval. ICANN also introduces a "Trademark Clearinghouse" and the "Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)" procedure to protect trademarks and expedite dispute resolution and save costs. The Trademark Clearinghouse is a central repository for information to be authenticated, stored and disseminated, pertaining to the rights of the trademark holders. Trademark holders would voluntarily provide data of their trademarks from all over the world, and it would assist a trademark watch service provided by the new gTLD registry for trademark holders and potential domain name registrants. The URS is a part of the new gTLD dispute resolution mechanisms created by ICANN to resolve cybersquatting disputes. A complainant in a URS proceeding must establish three elements that are very similar to the existing UDRP to succeed, but supposedly more expedited and cost efficient. Since the URS provides that it only protects court validated and registered trademarks, it is not clear whether unregistered marks used in commerce are protected under the URS. The URS escalates the complainant's burden of proof from a preponderance of evidence standard under the UDRP to a clear and convincing evidence standard. The notices to a respondent shall be sufficient if the URS Provider sends the notice of Complaint to the addresses listed in the Whois contact information. As registrants who wish to conceal their true identity often subscribe to the privacy/proxy service and the complainant's high rate of success in the UDRP proceeding is relevant to the respondents' default rate, the URS's simple notice requirement would deprive respondents of a fair opportunity to assert their rights over the disputed domain names.

• 정보화정책
• /
• 제23권3호
• /
• pp.43-63
• /
• 2016

본 연구는 인터넷 다국어도메인의 국제표준화에 대한 국제커뮤니케이션을 분석하여 그 대중화 실패 요인을 이해하고자 한다. 조직화 이론을 활용하여 ICANN에서 다국어도메인에 대한 필요성이 제기되는 초기 담론을 관찰하고, 기술적으로 계층적 방식이 선택되는 과정에서 어떤 갈등이 있었는지 살펴보며, 선택된 결정이 주요 이해당사자들에게 어떻게 받아들여졌는지 살펴본다. 분석 결과, 대중화 실패 요인은 미국을 중심으로 하는 ICANN과 그 필요성을 제기하였던 비영어권 국가 간의 인식론적 차이에서 찾을 수 있다. '정보격차 해소'와 '문화적 가치 추구'라는 담론은 '인터넷 인프라의 안정성'이라는 ICANN의 기술적 담론과 충돌한다. 이로써 국제표준화는 10년이라는 오랜 시간이 걸렸고 시장에서는 다양한 서비스들이 난립하는 결과를 초래하였다. 한국의 적용 사례를 보면, 도메인 무단 점유, 홍보 비용, 기술적 불안정성 및 이용자의 혼란 등 사회적 역효과가 대중들에게 외면받게 되는 요인으로 작용하였고 정부는 일관성 있는 정책을 제시하는데 실패했다.