인터넷 상에서 영업표지 사용 요건의 해석 -대법원 2010. 9. 30. 선고 2009도12238 판결을 중심으로-
Interpretation of Use requirement for Business Signs in the Internet -focusing on the Supreme Court Decision 2009do12238-
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Use of signs such as trade- and service-marks in the Internet has characteristics distinguished from the use of the conventional counterparts. This makes the meaning and the scope of the use of the marks obscure and have caused two interpretation methods for the meaning of the use: an interpretation stressing the original function of the mark indicating the origin of the products or the services to which the marks attached, and an interpretation stressing the resulted effect of confusion caused by the use of the marks. A recent precedent by the Supreme Court of Korea, 2009do12238,holds that the insertion and/or substitution of advertisement images in the web-pages constitute the "use" in the meaning of Unfair Competition and Trade secret Protection Act of Korea. This decision is interpreted to have taken the latter sort of the interpretation methods. This paper critically reviews the reasoning of the decision and concludes that the former sort of the interpretation is more plausible to prevent improper extension of the right of the mark holders.
Abstract
Use of signs such as trade- and service-marks in the Internet has characteristics distinguished from the use of the conventional counterparts. This makes the meaning and the scope of the use of the marks obscure and have caused two interpretation methods for the meaning of the use: an interpretation stressing the original function of the mark indicating the origin of the products or the services to which the marks attached, and an interpretation stressing the resulted effect of confusion caused by the use of the marks. A recent precedent by the Supreme Court of Korea, 2009do12238,holds that the insertion and/or substitution of advertisement images in the web-pages constitute the "use" in the meaning of Unfair Competition and Trade secret Protection Act of Korea. This decision is interpreted to have taken the latter sort of the interpretation methods. This paper critically reviews the reasoning of the decision and concludes that the former sort of the interpretation is more plausible to prevent improper extension of the right of the mark holders.
참고문헌 (35)
- 백강진, "인터넷에서의 상표사용의 개념", Law & Technology, 5(5) (2009)
- 사법연수원, "부정경쟁방지법" (2008), 사법연수원
- 송영식, "지적소유권법(하)" (2008), 육법사
- 정상조, "상표법과 부정경쟁방지법의 조화 ․ 통합", 특별법연구, 8 (2006)
- 조영선, "상표의 사용개념에 대한 입법론적 고찰", 저스티스, (105), pp.128~157 (2008), 한국법학원
- 대법원, "1.26.선고 95도1464 판결", ~ (1996)
- 대법원, "4.23.선고 97도322 판결", ~ (1999)
- 대법원, "8.25.자 2008마1541 결정", ~ (2010)
- 대법원, "9.30.선고 2009도12238 판결", ~ (2010)
- 서울고법, "9.23.자 2008라618 결정(가처분이의사건)", ~ (2008)
- 서울고법, "10.22.선고 2009노300 판결", ~ (2009)
- 서울중앙지법, "2.18.자 2008카합45 결정", ~ (2008)
- 서울중앙지법, "1.16.선고 2008고합312 판결", ~ (2009)
- 小野昌延, "新・注解不正競争防止法(新版)上巻" (2007), 青林書院
- 田村善之, "不正競爭法槪說(第2版)" (2003), 有斐閣
- Arthur R. Miller, "Intellectual Property Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright 4th" (2007), Thomson West
- Erich D. Schiefelbine, "Stopping a Trojan Horse: Challenging pop-up advertisements and embedded software schemes on the internet through unfair competition laws", Santa Clara Computer and High Tech. L. J, 19, pp.499~ (2003)
- Margreth Barrett, "Intellectual Property 2nd ed" (2008), Aspen
- Mark A. Lemley, "Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding. in: 인터넷 상에서 영업표지 사용 요건의 해석", Tex. L. Rev, 83, pp.413~ (2005)
- Mark A. Lemley, "Owning Mart(et)s", Mich. L. Rev, 109, pp.137~ (2010)
- Robert P. Merges, "Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age 3rd" (2003), Aspen
- Stacey L. Dogan, "Grounding trademark law through trademark use", Iowa. L. Rev, 92, pp.1669~ (2007)
- Wendy J. Gordon, "On Owning Information: Intellectual Property and the Restitutionary Impulse", Va. L. Rev, 78, pp.149~ (1992)
- 1-800 Contacts, "Inc. v. WhenU.com", F.Supp.2d, 309, pp.467~ (2003), S.D.N.Y
- 1-800 Contacts, "Inc. v. WhenU.com", F.3d, 414, pp.400~
- 1-800 Contacts, "Inc. v. WhenU.com., 546 U.S. 1033, 126 S.Ct. 749", ~
- Brookfield Communications v., "West Coast Entertainment Corp", F.3d, 174, pp.1036~ (1999)
- European Court of Justice, "Joined Cases C-236", 08 to C-238, pp.2010, ~
- Overstock.com v., "Smartbargains, Inc", P.3d, 192, pp.858~ (2008)
- Rescue.com Corp v., "Google, Inc", F.3d, 562, pp.123~ (2009)
- Sensient Technologies Corp. v., "Sensoryeffects Flavor. in: Rehearing and Rehearing en banc denied", F.3d, 613(3), pp.754~ (2010)
- -Haul International v., "WhenU", F. Supp.2d, 279, pp.723~ (2003), E.D.Va
- Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co, "LLC v. Gator Corp" (2002), WL
- Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co, "LLC v. Gator Corp" (2002), WL
- Wells Fargo v., "WhenU", F.Supp.2d, 293, pp.734~ (2003), E.D.Mich