본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

지적재산권분쟁의 중재적격에 관한 연구-한국과 중국을 중심으로-

A Study on Arbitration Qualification of Intellectual Property Right Dispute - Focus on Korea and China -

0

조회

0

다운로드

13

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류무역학

초록

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation’s competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's “Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement” in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China’s court. However, considering the criticism of China’s passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it’s very unlikely they’ll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO’s Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it’s being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

Abstract

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation’s competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's “Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement” in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China’s court. However, considering the criticism of China’s passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it’s very unlikely they’ll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO’s Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it’s being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

참고문헌 (26)

  1. 목영준, "상사중재법론" (2001), 박영사
  2. 이태희, "國際契約法-이론과 실무" (2001), 법문사
  3. 丁建忠, "外国仲裁法与实践" (1992), 中国对外经济贸易出版社
  4. 강수미, "지적재산권분쟁에 있어서 중재의 대상적격", 민사소송, 14(1), pp.127~155 (2010), 한국민사소송법학회
  5. 석광현, "改正仲裁法의 몇 가지 문제점-국제상사중재를 중심으로", 국제사법연구, (5) (2000)
  6. 손경한, "국제지적재산분쟁의 중재", 중재연구, 17(2), pp.71~100 (2007), 한국중재학회
  7. 손경한, "지적재산의 국제적 분쟁해결합의", 중재연구, 14(2), pp.199~241 (2004), 한국중재학회
  8. 윤선희, "지적재산분쟁의 처리에 있어서 중재와 재판", 발명특허, (9) (1994)
  9. 윤선희, "ADR에서의 지적재산권분쟁", 중재연구, 13(1), pp.125~167 (2003), 한국중재학회
  10. 장문철, "개정중재법 해설", 인권과정의, (4) (2000)
  11. 陈治东, "论我国涉外仲裁的司仲裁性问题", 法学(沪), (6) (1997)
  12. 付智勇, "论我国知识产权纠纷的仲裁", 法制在线, (1) (2010)
  13. 马民虎, "我国论知识产权侵权纠纷的可仲裁性", 西安交通大学学报, (2) (1999)
  14. 牛 强, "识产权纠纷的仲裁解决机制", 黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报, (1) (2010)
  15. 全 宁, "浅论知识产权纠纷的可仲裁性", 芜湖职业技术学院学报, (2) (2006)
  16. 孙移芳, "关于我国知识产权仲裁的几点思考", 经济研究参考, (41) (2010)
  17. 唐云峰, "国外知识产权争议仲裁的最新发展及对我国的启示" (2008), 2008知识产权南湖论坛
  18. 张 洁, "对国际商事争议可仲裁范围的探讨", 法学杂志, (2) (2002)
  19. "上海成立知识产权仲裁院", 中华商标, (11) (2008)
  20. "全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于我国加入《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》的决定)", ~
  21. "最高人民法院关于执行我国加入的《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》的通知”", ~
  22. "西部首家知识产权技术合同仲裁机构成立"[URL]
  23. "关于中华人民共和国仲裁法(草案)的说明"[URL]
  24. "《仲裁法》的立法背景"[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)