• The Research Journal of the Costume Culture
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.287-298
• /
• 2024

Clothing is intimately intertwined with daily lives as every individual relies on it. The pervasive issue of plagiarism in the fashion industry has led to an increased demand to protect intellectual property rights. Currently, studies on the protection of fashion design intellectual property rights in China remain in the exploratory stage and warrant further investigation. This paper addresses the issue in two parts. The first part contains an analysis of the theoretical foundation for the protection of fashion design copyrights. It is further divided into three subsections. The first subsection primarily examines the concept of copyrights and laws. The second subsection focuses on the concept of fashion design copyrights and laws. The third subsection analyzes copyright laws concerning fashion designs in China. The second section offers an analysis of infringement cases involving fashion designs published during the Baiyi Cup Intellectual Property Case Summary Writing Competition held in China in 2023. It outlines the shortcomings of the current Chinese copyright laws regarding the protection of fashion designs, and proposes measures for improvement. This study argues that the institutional framework for intellectual property rights in the Chinese fashion industry should align with practical considerations and explores suitable legal regulations and how they relate to specific circumstances in China. Besides refining the legal framework, fashion designers and enterprises must take measures to entablish the intellectual property rights of their clothing brands.

• 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.

• 한국디지털정책학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2005.11a
• /
• pp.523-530
• /
• 2005

전자상거래(e-commerce)의 발달은 과거의 전통적인 상거래를 IT기술을 이용한, 새로운 시장구조를 제공하고 있다. 특히 인터넷을 통한 소프트웨어, 게임, 동영상 등 디지털 컨텐츠(digital contents)에 대한 상거래가 크게 증가하고 있어, 이러한 디지털 컨텐츠의 유통에 신뢰를 제공할 수 있는 시스템, 즉 디지털 저작권관리(digital rights management system), 또는 디지털 지적 저작권관리(digital intellectual property system)에 대한 유통 비즈니스 모델이 필요하다. XrML은 권리(rights)를 명시하는 언어로써 본 연구는 XrML을 이용하여 저작권관리에 필요한 권리구조를 구현한 시스템(prototype)을 표현했다. 벤츠와 그에 따른 서비스들을 사용할 수 있는 권리와 조건들을 명시해준다. XrML은 현재 디지털 저작권관리(Digital Rights Management: DIPR)에 가장 많이 쓰이고 있는 Rights Language이다. XrML은 ContentGuard가 개발한 DIPR 서술 언어로 전 세계 산업계 표준으로 추진하기 위하여 파트너 회사 확대, 기능 확장, 무료 / 공개 형식으로 보급을 추진중이다.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.113-127
• /
• 2003

In some legal systems property passes at the time of the conclusion of the contract. In other legal systems property passes at some later time such as the time at which the goods are delivered to the buyer. It was not regarded possible to unify the rule on this point nor was it regarded necessary to do so since rules are provided by this CISG for several questions linked, at least in certain legal systems, to the passing of property. Even though the CISG rules that it does not govern the passing of property in the goods sold, it does not exclude completely the effect which the contract may have on the property in the goods sold. Problems that under some domestic systems are decided by reference to the "property" concept are governed by specific provisions of the CISG. First of All, the CISG(Arts. 41 and 42) deals with seller's obligation to the buyer that the goods be free of third party claims. Moreover, Article 45 gives a buyer the right to require the seller to deliver goods that the seller wrongfully withholds. Secondly, Article 81(2) gives a seller the right to claim restitution of goods for which the buyer fails to pay. Domestic law must respect these rights as between the seller and buyer; if such rights between the parties prevail over the claims of creditors or other third parties under domestic law, domestic tribunals should give the same effect to rights established by the CISG. Thirdly, the right to sell the goods arises where there has been an unreasonable delay by the party in taking possession of them or in taking them back(Article 88).

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.23-45
• /
• 2008

The object of this study is to present a strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries focusing on international cooperation policy of KIPO and infringement of overseas intellectual property rights on the notion that a policy performed without a long-term plan will not lead to industrial growth in the long run. There is a high possibility that aggressive patent policy and black box strategy of Japanese enterprise can be a burden to Korean enterprises. Thus, a policy should be established against the technology protectionism. The policy can be based on a strategy about international cooperation policy of KIPO and strategy against infringement of overseas intellectual property rights. Of course, collaboration and cooperation will be activated among the advanced countries including technical cooperation. However, a systematic strategy of intellectual property rights should be focused on international cooperation and countermeasure against infringement of overseas intellectual property rights because national interest takes precedence over any other interest especially in case of strategically owing industry. A strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries is as follows. A strategy is required to cope with infringement of overseas intellectual property rights. Korean government has to strengthen the function of overseas intellectual property rights protection center, strengthen boundary restriction of infringement goods, promote international dispute study, train international dispute specialist, construct confidence as social capital etc. Enterprises have to maintain no Patent no Future policy, specialize on application and countermeasure against infringement dispute, participate for formation and standardization of patent pool, strive for specialization regarding technical transfer and license management.

• 한국벤처창업학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2007.11a
• /
• pp.15-43
• /
• 2007

The object of this study is to present a strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries focusing on international cooperation policy of KIPO and infringement of overseas intellectual property rights on the notion that a policy performed without a long-term plan will not lead to industrial growth in the long run. The number of dispute cases of intellectual property rights in Japan ranks first with 275 cases compared to that of other countries. Among the dispute case, the number of validation trial is 107 cases(38.9%), and correction trial is 83 cases(30.2%). The USA ranks second in dispute of intellectual property rights. Among the dispute of intellectual property rights in the USA, the number of validation trial is 66 cases(64.7%), and correction trial is 21 cases(20.6%). A strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries is as follows. A strategy is required to cope with infringement of overseas intellectual property rights. Korean government has to strengthen the function of overseas intellectual property rights protection center, strengthen boundary restriction of infringement goods, promote international dispute study, train international dispute specialist, solve jurisdiction problem of patent court system, improve trial system, construct confidence as social capital etc. Enterprises have to maintain No Patent No Future policy, specialize on application and countermeasure against infringement dispute, participate for formation and standardization of Patent Pool, strive for specialization regarding technical transfer and license management.

• Journal of Information Management
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.141-159
• /
• 2006

This paper presents the response strategy taken by the both parties who possess and infringe the patent rights in the case of patent litigation occurring in local companies. It is common that many entrepreneurs suffer from patent judgment litigation related to the intellectual property rights. Response strategy on the standpoints of patentees and trespassers are discussed in several cases such as infringement and abuse of patent rights, divulgence of trade secret and invention during employment in small & medium sized enterprises.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.77-98
• /
• 2021

International commercial mediation of intellectual property rights fully meets the interests of the parties in such disputes in terms of their needs for neutral forum of dispute resolution, cost-effective settlement, objective opinion of relevant experts, internationally enforceable solution. In addition, as a procedural flexibility, respected self-determination of the parties, exploration of possible creative business solutions, maintenance of business relationship and confidentiality of mediation are major characteristics which can be competitively differentiated from the lawsuit or arbitration. The settlement agreement as a result of the WIPO mediation has an effect of contract while the settlement agreement as a result of most domestic ones has an effect of judicial reconciliation which can be domestically enforced. The latter is not subject to the application of the Singapore Convention on Mediation which establishes a harmonized legal framework for the right to invoke settlement agreements as well as for their enforcement. The WIPO international mediation system and its experience may be a good reference for Korea to take an initiative to establish a globally competitive international mediation system in the area of intellectual property rights.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.11 no.1_2
• /
• pp.115-155
• /
• 1980

Nowadays managers of fisheries enterprises and users of accounting information have a considerable interest in the fishery right. The fishery right, which is given by administrative quarters, is referred to exclusive fishing right in a certain coastal fishing ground, and it has been one of the property rights since the turn of the century. The main purpose of this study is to provide an improved accounting method of the fishery right from the side of accounting. To achieve this purpose, legal nature of the fishery right should be understood in the first place, for the fishery right, an intangible asset, is a sort of property right guaranteed by the fisheries laws, According to the basic law in the fisheries "Fisheries Law, " the fishery right is broken down largely into three categories; culture fishing right, set fishing right and common fishing right. The legal characteristics of these fishery rights are as followings: 1. The fishery right is a private right. 2. The fishery right is a property right. 3. The fishery right is a right in rem, and legal provisions pertaining to land are applied to the fishery right with necessary modifications. In addition to the above fishery rights, the Fisheries Law provides some provisions on the so-called entrance right, and those who obtained the right are authorized to access to a certain common fishing right fishing ground where they have been traditionally fishing. In the inland fisheries, the fishery right system similar to that of the coastal fisheries discussed above is adopted in conformity with the Inland Fisheries Developing and Expediting Law. Viewing from an angle of accounting, there are two kinds of additional fishing rights which are dealt as assets. These fishery rights dealt as asset include the license of entry in the so-called permitted fishing which is also called as fishery right in plain language, and tile entrance right obtained abroad. Although these two kinds of rights are not the fishery right from a viewpoint of law, they are regarded as fishing rights in accounting which intends to provide a useful economic information.formation.

• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.62-86
• /
• 2017

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) system is one of the major institutions for incentivizing innovation. However, a strong IPR regime does not necessarily encourage innovation every time. This is because a variety of factors come into play in configuring the ways the IPR system interacts with the dynamics of innovation. In the present study, we examine whether different degrees of absorptive capacity at the industry level bring about heterogeneous effects of a strong IPR regime on the innovation capability of innovators across different industries in developing country. Using the case of the 1986 IPR reform in Korea, which permitted patenting pharmaceutical products and copyrighting computer programs, we analyze the quality of patents produced by Korean applicants between 1982 and 1991. Our analysis finds no evidence that the IPR reform improved the innovation capability of innovators in the two aforementioned sectors, but rather affected their patenting behavior differently.