• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2019

The fashion industry has been growing in Korea, but the law and the dispute resolution have been less than effective so far. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, ending up with designers and fashion companies relying on their trademarks to protect their design. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems and leads to resorting to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, however, are emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry should sincerely consider a self-regulating program in which its members-both fashion designers and corporations alike-can resolve disputes in a manner mutually beneficial to all parties in order to preserve the industry's growth, solidarity, and esteem. From 2016, KCAB's Fashion Industry Dispute Advisory Committee (FIDAC) for ADR has promoted a better solution for disputes in the fashion industry. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to procuring innovation in fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an alternate dispute resolution process. The ADR process can mitigate the uncertainty created by relevant legislation or any other disputes, which could result in shying away from any business in the fashion industry.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.85-112
• /
• 2011

These days utilization of copyright in daily life and economic activities is becoming more important than ever, and IT technology is developing day by day. Along with those fact, copyright infringement and dispute is naturally increasing. This thesis dealt with the 3 different issues of ADR on copyright. The First part, introduce ADR system that was performed by Korea Copyright Committee according to Copyright law. This paper evaluate the committee's efforts to provide resolution of copyright disputes via conciliation was effective. So it needs to be look over several countries' ADR, beside conventional judicial remedy. And Korea's copyright conciliation system which is successfully operating also introduced. Second, In many countries, including South Korea are take advantage of conciliation as the way to settle down the dispute over copyright. Furthermore, looked over if we can use arbitration as tool to settle dispute or not. Currently in Korea, patent dispute is handled by Industrial Property Dispute Conciliation Committee(The Invention Promotion Act Ch.5) and Layout-design Review and Mediation Committee(The Act on the Layout-designs of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Art.29-34), but using performance of those two committee is still too low. In comparison, the copyright committee, a affiliation organization of the ministry of culture, sports and tourism has much more result in conciliation compare with patent dispute. Copyright disputes has arbitrability of it's subject-matter and many regulating organs are interested in it. (especially, binding of arbitral award and final resolution). Take advantage of both conciliation and arbitration could be good way to resolve copyright disputes. Third, the writer look at the proposal on the creation of Northeast Regional Center for Intellectual Property ADR. Because of the nature of copyright and rapid development of internet technology, international use of work become more frequent and accordingly infringement cases are increasing. The role of commercial arbitration regimes and institutions which has progressed significantly worldwide level, but which has only just begun in the intellectual property ADR area, leads also to a clash of often very different legal cultures and protection in a market economy. International cooperation in regional area with conflict interests becomes an important alternative. But it will depend on the building of regional institutions and mechanisms. The feasibility of this proposal and preconditions were examined. Establishment of new international organization requires a lot of time, cost and efforts. And risk of failure is much too high. Therefore factual, statistical review should be preceded. In addition, technical measures, such as on-line arbitration is necessary to review also. Furthermore in order to establish new organization, the relative law, legal environment, public sentiment and international compliance must be carefully considered with factual review about the needs and economic benefits of each country Yet on complex regulatory matters such as IP and ADR, a great deal of the potential benefits from international standards arises not from the international legal framework nor even the formal content of national legislation, but from the informed and effective use made of the possibilities within the system, including by policymakers and regulators.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.139-174
• /
• 2005

Since a declaration between North and South Korea was adopted, North and South Korea has strengthened the interchange and cooperation between each other in many fields. Especially, the interchange and cooperation in the field of industrial property right, such as patent and trademark, are required to keep up with the age of the knowledge industry. But, until a recent date, there has been little interchange or cooperation in the field of industrial property right, and a few major companies were attempt to apply for the patent in North Korea through the Third country The system of industrial property laws in North and South Korea are very different because of time and political ideology barriers. To unify the system of industrial property laws in North and South Korea, firstly, North and South Korea must try to recognize and understand the dissimilarity between them. In this article, I compared the system of industrial property law of South Korea with that of North Korea to search commonalities and dissimilarities. Furthermore, it is needed to establish systematic devices for understanding of between North and South Korea, for instance, conducting a interdisciplinary seminar or dispatching a judge mutually. Finally, it is necessary to phase in a practical plan for unification. In the short run, mutual application and registration have to be authorized, and in the long view, unifying the practice of industrial property law service is needed. At the conclusion, the industrial property laws in North and South Korea can be unified systematically. In other words , to unify system of industrial property laws in North and South Korea, it is prerequisite that mutual understanding of industrial property laws and performance of the unify plan. The interchange and cooperation in this field will not only promote technical development but also create common interests of North and South Korea by expanding an opportunity for creating and utilizing industrial property.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.87-105
• /
• 2015

Intellectual property law is slowly fighting to keep pace with the rapid growth of the fashion industry. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, even in the US and other top fashion nations, forcing designers and fashion companies to rely on their trademarks to protect their work. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems as witnessed in a recent Christian Louboutin case, leading the parties to resort to Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution(ODR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, are increasingly emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry (CFDA in the US case) should sincerely consider a self-regulating program in which its members, both fashion designers and corporations alike, can resolve disputes in a manner mutually beneficial to all parties in order to preserve the industry's growth, solidarity, and esteem In particular, for the US fashion industry, the ongoing Innovative Design Protection and Privacy Prevention Act(IDPPPA) anti-counterfeit legislation could have caused a chilling effect against innovation. New designers with no name and less resources who could normally flourish producing inspired-by designs may find themselves subject to copyright infringement legislation since the IDPPPA may expand the protection of established designers and brands with more resources. This fear and its implication could be solved by the fashion industry itself since fashion experts know best how to handle these fast-paced issues arising in the field. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to protecting innovation within fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an ADR process. This can mitigate the uncertainty created by the IDPPPA or any other legislation from elsewhere, which could result in a shying away from experimentation with inspired-by designs.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.17 no.7
• /
• pp.487-497
• /
• 2017

South Korea needs reorganization of dispute resolution system due to the frequent occurrence of a case that trade secret or technique are leaked. First, the distributed various laws are established and enforced by enacting and enforcing individual laws. Therefore, the redundancy problems, the collision of individual laws, the decline in diversity, integrity, and connectivity are issues. An independent legal system is needed by Act on the Prevention and Protection of Technology Leakage. Thereby, The support system of technological protection that is sprayed in government departments such as the Small and Medium Business Administration, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, the Patent Office, the Fair Trade Commission, the Trade Committee, the National Police Agency, and the Spy Agency integrates and unifies institutionally, and it is necessary to advance a policy with functional division. Second, the Patent Tribunal, the Invention Promotion Act, the Industrial Property Right Dispute Mediation Committee by the patent law, the Industrial Technical Dispute Mediation Committee on the Industrial Technology Outflow Prevention and Protection Law and the Medium and Small Firm Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Committee on Small Business Technology Protection Support Law are installed. However, since it established the integrated law on the Act on the Prevention and Protection of Technology Leakage, it is desirable to set the merged operation of establishment on the Technical Dispute Mediation Committee under the Small and Medium Business Administration or the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.93-118
• /
• 2012

본 연구는 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 대한 미국 케이스에 관한 연구입니다. 본 연구의 목적은 한국의 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 대한 추후 연구와 가까운 장래에 비교연구를 위해서 지적재산에 관련된 케이스들에 관하여 미국의 연구들을 논하는데 있습니다. 본 연구에서 지적재산 관련 사건들의 중재에 관한 미국케이스들을 채택하였습니다. 그리고 본 연구의 목적 달성과 효과적인 연구를 성취하기 위해 그 케이스들을 인용하였습니다. 그러므로, 본 연구의 구성은 특히, 라이센싱분쟁의 중재, 특허분쟁의 중재, 저작권분쟁의 중재를 위하여 지적재산분야와 중재 분야에 있는 케이스로 이루어져 있습니다. 중재조항은 분쟁에 관해 누가 결정할 것인가 그리고 분쟁이 중재 가능한가 아닌가에 관하여 법원에서 중재적격 문제들을 분석할때에 계약 원칙을 적용하게 됩니다. 일반적으로, 중재적격의 의문은 사법적 분야의 질문에 관한 것 입니다. 그러나, 중재조항이 분명하고, 명백하고, 오해없는 문구들인 곳에서 법원은 연방 중재법이 중재조항과 중재범위를 포함하고 있기 때문에 중재를 존중합니다. 그러므로, 저런 경우에 중재인은 중재적격을 판단 할 수 있습니다. 그러나, 미국에서 법원은 어떤 케이스들은 ICC 룰로 구속되어지고 그리고 다른 케이스들은 AAA 룰로 구속 되어지는 것을 발견했습니다. 어떤 룰이던지 간에 중재조항은 주의깊게 만들어야만 하고 그리고 분명하고 명백한 구문을 제공하여야만 한다는 것을 법원에 의해 요구되어지고 있습니다. 본 연구에서 발견한 점들은, 라이센싱분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 중재합의의 범위가 광범위 또는 제한적일지라도 양 당사자의 중재조항을 위해 계약에서 분명하고 명확한 문구를 만드는 것이 중요합니다. 이것은 우리에게 계약의 원칙이 분쟁에서 적용 되어지고 있다는 것을 보여 주고 있습니다. 그래서, 중재조항의 조문은 법원이나 중재인에게 논쟁 또는 오역이 없게 확실하고 분명하게 명시하여야 합니다. 특허분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 대부분 법원들은 케이스들을 분석할때에 광범위한 중재조항에 따라오고 있습니다. 중재적격 결정의 테스트로서 계약에서 "arising under" or "relating to" 구절은 ADR을 위해 그리고 분쟁의 예방을 위해 중재가 광범위한 문구를 포함하고 있는가 아닌가를 보는데 중요합니다. 더구나, 특허 또는 특허관련 권리들 하에서, 중재는 연방중재법에 의해 지배되기 때문에 계약은 특허 유효성 또는 침해 문제들이 중재를 통한 분쟁을 해결하도록 하나의 문구를 포함해도 됩니다. 그러므로, 이 분석은 미국의 케이스들을 비교한 결과로서, 한국중재법도 또한 모든 필요한 조문들이 그것들이 광범위하건 제한된 범위이건 간에 모호한 이슈들을 피하기 위해 분명하고 오해없는 문구들이여야 한다는 것을 제시합니다. 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 케이스에 근거하여 발견한 점들은 저작권법을 포함한 광범위한 중재조항이 있는 경우 저작권의 유효성은 법원이 독점할 수 없다고 법원은 판단했습니다. 그리고 연방중재법은 법원이 청구취지가 중재가능한 클레임들에(arbitrable claims) 관하여 중재를 강요하도록 지원하고 있습니다. 이것은 저작권 케이스일지라도 계약에 있어서 중재조항이 법원이 중재를 강요하도록 중재가능한가 아닌가 결정하는데 분쟁에 있어 중요한 역학을 한다는 것을 제시합니다. 그러므로, 본 연구는 계약에서 광범위한 중재조항은 중재인이 지적재산 클레임에 대해 판정 또는 룰을 결정하게 허용한다는 것을 발견했습니다. 본 연구의 결과들은 계약에 있어 중재의 범위는 계약의 원칙을 적용한다는 것입니다. 그리고 중재조항에 있어서 침해와 유효성 문제들의 결정은 계약 해석에 관련되어 있다는 것을 제시합니다. 그러므로, 양 당사자가 분명하고 명확하게 달리 결정하지 않았다면, 양 당사자가 중재에 대해 동의했는가 아닌가의 의문점은 법원에 의해 결정되어지는 것입니다. 이것은 분명하고 명확한 문구가 중재조항에 존재하지 않는다면 중재인에 의해 결정되지 않는다는 것을 뜻합니다. 중재조항은 명백하게 중재인에게 결정의 권한을 주어야만 한다는 것입니다.