본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

상표권 행사에 대한 경쟁법 집행의 과제와 방향성

The Problems of Competition Enforcement against Trademark Practices

류시원
한국경쟁법학회 (Korean Competition Law Association)|2022.09|경쟁법연구 (Journal of Korean Competition Law)|제46권 |pp. 164-200|DOI 10.35770/jkcl.2022.46..164

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

상표권경쟁법상표경쟁정책지적재산권Intellectual Property RightsCompetition LawCompetition PolicyTrademark Rights상표권 행사친경쟁성신용자산TrademarksTrademark PracticesPro-competitivenessAssets in Good Name

초록

Activities relating to various intellectual properties are major aspects where competition law puts its interest. According to the modern view, it is generally accepted that protecting intellectual properties harmonizes with the purpose of the competition law, and the common goal rooted in the innovation is central to such understanding. While trademarks are one of the major intellectual properties, there are substantial differences in the functions and effects of trademarks as compared to patents. Specifically, trademarks are not protected by virtue of the reward for creation of novel ideas or expressions, but as assets in good name which function to differentiate competitors in the markets. Being essentially different from other intellectual property rights which form statutory monopoly and thus bear innate tensions with competition policies, trademarks have core functions of maintaining the competitive order. As such, trademark owners’ business practices including exertion and licensing may be readily harmonized with the goal of competition rules. On one hand, trademark protection would enable trademark owners put more effort in improving the quality of trademarked products in order to maintain the good name attached to his/her trademarks. On the other hand, the ideal state that the trademark rules presume where competitors use there own trademarks distinguished from one another would prevent confusions on consumer’s side with regard to the sources of products, resulting in lowering of search costs. Evidently, such outcome contributes to consumer welfare. Therefore, the standard views of competition enforcement toward the activities related to trademarks should be distinguished from those with respect to the patents or copyrights, which means that the pro-competitiveness of the basic functions of trademarks and trademark protection rules need to be more respected when enforcing competition law against the licensing activities or other transactions related to the trademarks. Further, maintaining keen understanding of the specific competitive characteristics of trademarks and the protection regime thereof may affect the methods of market definition, assessing market power and the construction of the theory of harm when certain conducts based on the effectiveness of trademarks incur competition concerns. By avoiding generalization of IPRs and establishing own perspectives of competition enforcement with the genuine characteristics of trademarks in consideration, administrative resources can be duly allocated so as to minimize enforcement errors in the course of applying competition law against the activities related to trademarks.

Abstract

Activities relating to various intellectual properties are major aspects where competition law puts its interest. According to the modern view, it is generally accepted that protecting intellectual properties harmonizes with the purpose of the competition law, and the common goal rooted in the innovation is central to such understanding. While trademarks are one of the major intellectual properties, there are substantial differences in the functions and effects of trademarks as compared to patents. Specifically, trademarks are not protected by virtue of the reward for creation of novel ideas or expressions, but as assets in good name which function to differentiate competitors in the markets. Being essentially different from other intellectual property rights which form statutory monopoly and thus bear innate tensions with competition policies, trademarks have core functions of maintaining the competitive order. As such, trademark owners’ business practices including exertion and licensing may be readily harmonized with the goal of competition rules. On one hand, trademark protection would enable trademark owners put more effort in improving the quality of trademarked products in order to maintain the good name attached to his/her trademarks. On the other hand, the ideal state that the trademark rules presume where competitors use there own trademarks distinguished from one another would prevent confusions on consumer’s side with regard to the sources of products, resulting in lowering of search costs. Evidently, such outcome contributes to consumer welfare. Therefore, the standard views of competition enforcement toward the activities related to trademarks should be distinguished from those with respect to the patents or copyrights, which means that the pro-competitiveness of the basic functions of trademarks and trademark protection rules need to be more respected when enforcing competition law against the licensing activities or other transactions related to the trademarks. Further, maintaining keen understanding of the specific competitive characteristics of trademarks and the protection regime thereof may affect the methods of market definition, assessing market power and the construction of the theory of harm when certain conducts based on the effectiveness of trademarks incur competition concerns. By avoiding generalization of IPRs and establishing own perspectives of competition enforcement with the genuine characteristics of trademarks in consideration, administrative resources can be duly allocated so as to minimize enforcement errors in the course of applying competition law against the activities related to trademarks.

참고문헌 (53)

  1. 안병한, "지식재산권 관련 공정거래법 집행에 관한 법적 연구", 박사, pp.2019
  2. 윤선희, "상표법" (2014), 법문사
  3. 정상조, "상표법 주해 Ⅰ" (2018), 박영사
  4. 정상조, "특허법 주해 Ⅱ" (2010), 박영사
  5. 정상조, "지식재산권법" (2013), 홍문사
  6. 나영숙, "역지불합의에 대한 경쟁법적 평가: 우리나라와 미국 판례의 비교 분석을 중심으로", 경쟁저널, (177) (2014)
  7. 박성호, "지적재산권에 관한 헌법 제22조 제2항의 의미와 내용", 법학논총, 24(1), pp.95~118 (2007), 법학연구소
  8. 박준우, "건축저작물의 실질적 유사성 판단기준에 관한 검토", 계간 저작권, 31(3), pp.5~44 (2018), 한국저작권위원회
  9. 백승엽, "우리나라에서의 저작권 남용법리의 정립을 위한 일고찰", Law & Technology, 9(1) (2013)
  10. 심재한, "상표권 및 저작권의 행사와 EU경쟁법", 상사판례연구, 22(4), pp.565~594 (2009), 한국상사판례학회
  11. 오승한, "특허ㆍ저작권자의 시장선점 행위에 대한 독점규제법상 규제", 산업재산권, (29), pp.288~340 (2009), 한국지식재산학회
  12. 이규홍, "부정경쟁방지법 제2조 제1호 차목(변경 후 카목)에 대한 연구- 부정경쟁행위와 불공정거래행위의 교차점 -", 정보법학, 22(2), pp.59~99 (2018), 한국정보법학회
  13. 이호영, "공정거래법상 특허권 행사행위의 평가 - 원칙적 법리의 확인", 경쟁법연구, 34, pp.68~106 (2016), 한국경쟁법학회
  14. 이황, "공정거래법에서 ‘거래상 지위’의 개념과 판단기준", 법제연구, (51), pp.39~73 (2016), 한국법제연구원
  15. 전효숙, "지식재산권의 침해와 부당이득", 산업재산권, (36), pp.227~272 (2011), 한국지식재산학회
  16. 조성국, "보건산업에 대한 독점규제법의 적용에 관한 연구 - 제약산업 리베이트 규제의 최근동향을 중심으로 -", 경쟁법연구, 22, pp.286~306 (2010), 한국경쟁법학회
  17. 최승재, "저작권 및 상표권 남용행위에 대한 연구 - “지식재산권의 부당한 행사에 대한 심사지침(2010년)” 개정을 위하여 -", 법조, 60(4), pp.158~202 (2011), 법조협회[DOI]
  18. 한도율, "저작권과 공정거래법의 관계", 기업법연구, 29(2), pp.271~302 (2015), 한국기업법학회
  19. 황태희, "저작권 신탁관리단체의 남용행위와 공정거래법 적용", 아주법학, 9(4), pp.183~206 (2016), 법학연구소[DOI]
  20. 저작권과 산업재산권의 보호 및 운영체제상의 주요제도 비교- 업무상저작물과 직무발명 보호제도의 비교를 중심으로, "김원오", 문화체육관광부, ~ (2012)
  21. McCarthy, J. Thomas, "McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Volume 4" (1996), West Group
  22. WIPO, "WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook", ~ (2008)
  23. 中山信弘, "著作権法" (2022), 有斐閣
  24. Barnes, David W., "Congestible Intellectual Property and Impure Public Goods", Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 9(8) (2011)
  25. Barnes, David W., "Classic Fair Use: Confusion about Defense", Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, 20 (2004)
  26. Bronnenberg, Bart J., "Do Pharmacists Buy Bayer? Informed Shoppers and the Brand Premium", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130 (2015)
  27. Brown, Ralph S., "Advertising and the Public Interest: Legal Protection of Trade Symbols", Yale Law Journal, 57 (1948)
  28. Caenegem, William van, "Striking a Balance between Protecting Commercial Reputation and Promoting Competition", Australian Law Journal, 77 (2003)
  29. Carter, Stephen L., "The Trouble with Trademark", Yale Law Journal, 99 (1990)
  30. Castaldi, Carolina, "All the Great Things You Can Do with Trademark Data:Taking Stock and Looking Ahead", Strategic Organization, 18(3) (2020)
  31. Davis, Michael H., "Death of a Salesman’s Doctrine: A Critical Look at Trademark Use", Georgia Law Review, 19 (1985)
  32. Dogan, Stacey, "Bounded Rationality, Paternalism, and Trademark Law", Houston Law Review, 56(2) (2018)
  33. Economides, Nicholas S., "The Economics of Trademarks", Trademark Reporter, 78(4) (1988)
  34. Fromer, Jeanne C., "The Intellectual Property Clause’s External Limitations", Duke Law Journal, 61(7) (2012)
  35. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Research Handbook on the Economics of Intellectual Property Law, Volume 1: Theory" (2021), Edward Elgar
  36. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Markets in IP and Antitrust", Georgetown Law Journal, 100 (2012)
  37. Landes, William M., "Trademark Law: An Economic Perspective", Journal of Law and Economics, 30(2) (1987)
  38. A New Balance Between IP and Antitrust, "Lemley, Mark A.", ~, pp.Working Paper No. 340 (2007)
  39. Lianos, Ioannis, "Superior Bargaining Power and the Global Food Value Chain: The Wuthering Heights of Holistic Competition Law?", Concurrences, 1(2016) (2016)
  40. Lunney, Glynn S., "Trademark Monopolies", Emory Law Journal, 48(2) (1999)
  41. McClure, Daniel M., "Trademarks and Competition: The Recent History", Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(2) (1996)
  42. Oddi, A. Samuel, "The Functions of “Functionality”, in Trademark Law", Trademark Reporter, 76(4) (1986)
  43. Petit, Nicolas, "Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property and High Tech" (2017), Cambridge University
  44. Sean Morris, P., "Trademarks as Sources of Market Power: Legal and Historical Encounters", Liverpool Law Review, 38 (2017)
  45. Weinberg, Harold R., "Is the Monopoly Theory of Trademarks Robust or a Bust?", Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 13 (2005)
  46. "Constitutional Constraints on Federal Antitrust Law" (2014)[URL]
  47. European Commission, "Commission Notice-Guidelines on the application of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to technology transfer agreements", 2004, 02 (Apr. 27, 2004), pp.2004, ~
  48. "Using “Old Cases,” District Court Applies Per Se Standard of Review to Blue Cross Blue Shield’s Restrictive Practices in Antitrust MDL" (2018)[URL]
  49. Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights, "OECD", ~ (1989)
  50. Perlman, Matthew, "2nd Circ. Won’t Rehear FTC’s 1-800 Contacts Loss", Law360 (Aug. 26, 2021), ~ (2021)
  51. U.S. DOJ & FTC, "Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (Apr. 6, 1995)", ~ (1995)
  52. U.S. DOJ & FTC, "Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (Jan. 12, 2017)", ~ (2017)
  53. Report on Analysis of the Economic, "Legal Literature on Intellectual Property (IP) Rights: A Barrier to Entry?", WIPO, 2012

관련 논문AI추천

경쟁법과 지식재산권의 긴장관계에 대한 이해최난설헌한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2016 · 제33권 상표권 라이선스의 공정화를 위한 심사지침의 개정방안 연구정태호법학연구소 · 원광법학2014 · 제30권 제4호공정거래법에 의한 지적재산권 남용 규제: 비판과 대안의 제시손호진중앙법학회 · 중앙법학2011 · 제13권 제1호공정거래법상 특허권 행사행위의 평가 - 원칙적 법리의 확인이호영한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2016 · 제34권 A Study of Competition Law and Intellectual Property in the EU: Comparative Perspectives in Licensing Agreements최요섭한국지식재산연구원 · 지식재산연구2011 · 제6권 제2호소위 ‘사실상 표준필수특허’의 행사에 대한 경쟁법적 평가 － 2016년 지식재산권 심사지침 개정을 중심으로 －이호영한국경영법률학회 · 경영법률2016 · 제26권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)

플랫폼기업결합 규제론에 대한 고찰 - 데이터독점론과 킬러인수론을 중심으로 -주진열pp. 3-47공정거래법상 기업결합 신고 및 심사제도의 효율화 방안김윤정pp. 48-86「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한 법률」 상 중개플랫폼 책임 조항의 개선방안윤신승pp. 87-130데이터 수집과 그 제한의 한계 - 야놀자 판결과 링크드인 판결 사이에서-강정희pp. 131-163아세안 경쟁법 비교법 연구 - 모빌리티 플랫폼 간 기업결합 사례 분석을 중심으로 -박준영pp. 201-232
원문 보기