CPTPP상의 관련상품과 상표법상 유사상품 판단의 비교

김원오 서강대학교 법학연구소 2024 법과기업연구 Vol.14 No.2

본고는 포괄적·점진적 환태평양동반자 협정(Comprehensive and Progressive Trans- Pacific Partnership : CPTPP)가입을 염두에 두었을 때, 협정 제18.20조에서 상표권의 권리범위를 설정하는데 있어 “관련 상품” 및 서비스에 대해 규정하고 있는데, 관련상품의 개념이 현행 국내 상표법상 사용되고 있는 유사상품의 개념과 달라 해석에 따라 권리범위에 차이가 발생하거나 상표제도 운영에 혼란을 초래할 우려가 있어 이에 관한 검토를 목적으로 한다. 우리 상표법 제108조 제1항 1호에 의하면 상표권의 금지적 효력은 동일·유사 상품에까지 미친다. 그런데 CPTPP협정문상 “관련상품(Related Goods)”의 범위가 이와 부합하는지를 파악해 보기 위해 미국의 법령과 판례상 관련상품의 개념과 그 판단기준에 대한 고찰을 한 후, 우리 상표실무와 판례에서 유사상품을 판단하는 기준을 비교 검토하여 양자가 같은 범주의 용어인지 차이가 있는 별개의 용어인지를 판단해 본다. 현행 상표법상 “유사 상품”의 범위 보다 “관련상품”의 범위가 넓다는 견해와 차이가 없다는 2개의 대립된 해석론이 존재하는 바, 그 각각의 논거에 대해 살펴본다. 마지막으로 관련상품 여부 판단과 상품의 유사판단 법리를 종합적으로 비교하면서 그 접점을 모색해 보고 CPTPP 가입을 위한 법개정의 필요성을 정리하며 결론에 대신한다. Article 18.20 of the Agreement stipulates “related goods” and services in establishing the scope of trademark rights, considering joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The purpose of this study is to review the concept of ‘related goods’ because the concept of related goods differs from the concept of ‘similar goods’ used under the current domestic trademark law, which may cause differences in the scope of rights or confusion in the operation of the trademark system. According to Article 108 (1) 1 of the Korean Trademark Act, the prohibitive effect of trademark rights extends to the same or similar goods. To determine whether the scope of “Related Goods” in the CPTPP agreement conforms to this Article, we consider the concept of “related goods” and their judgment criteria under US trademark law and precedents, and then compare and review the criteria for judging ‘similar goods’ in our trademark practice and precedents to determine whether they are terms of the same category or separate terms with differences. There are two opposing interpretations. The view that there is no difference and the view that the range of “related goods” is wider than the range of “similar goods” under the current trademark law, and each argument is examined. Finally, by comprehensively comparing the theories of a related goods and similar goods, and the contact point between two theories is sought. The necessity of revising the trademark law to join the CPTPP is summarized and replaced by conclusions.

지적재산권 중첩보호체제의 문제점과 해결원리 : 응용미술품의 의장법과 저작권법에 의한 중첩보호를 중심으로

김원오 한국지식재산학회 2004 産業財産權 Vol.- No.15

The extension of copyright protection to works of applied art creates a special problem for the judiciary because these works incorporate elements which fall within the boundaries of both copyright and design law. For example, the possibility exists of an overlap between the protection afforded by a design and the protection afforded by a copyright in the area of works of applied art. This possibility exists because, by definition, both a design and a copyright theoretically could be used to protect the aesthetically pleasing aspects of a utilitarian article. This study aims to make a possible solution for the problem of a "Cumulation of Protection System"

특허품질 제고를 위한 특허쟁송체제 개선 및 그 운영상의 주요 쟁점 검토

김원오 한국지식재산학회 2020 産業財産權 Vol.- No.65

Efforts to improve patent quality have been selected as the core issue of successive governments, and has been constantly carried out since it is difficult to sustain innovation growth through R&D investment without the trust of companies in the “strong and legally secure patent right”, which can be said to be the core of patent quality. Until now, the Patent Office has made every effort to improve the quality of examinations and the Patent Tribunal has made every effort to improve the quality of examinations. However, the current patent litigation system has improved many problems in the past and is making a step forward. In the past, discussions on patent quality have been mainly dealt with as a matter of examination quality or trial judgment quality. However, it is difficult to improve the quality without supporting improvement of “litigation quality”. Therefore, this article approached the current patent litigation body and its operational problems and challenges from four main directions as a measure to improve patent quality through improvement of litigation quality. First, what are the chronic and fundamental problems and irrationalities that have hindered patent quality? Secondly, is there any way to resolve conflicts and conflicts among patent litigation participants, which are considered to be one of the factors that hinder the quality of litigation? Third, why has the patent invalidation rate not improved despite continuous efforts, and why does the fundamental difference between the patent tribunal and the patent court exist in patent eligibility decisions? Fourth, are there any differences in perceptions and gaps between the Patent Office, which is an administrative body, the Patent Tribunal, which is a quasi-judicial body, and the courts, which are judicial bodies? I looked for a way to solve the question that In the end, the quality improvement problem of patent litigation is mostly a matter of fundamental institutional improvement in terms of structural and institutional issues. Therefore, improvement of cooperation and mutual relations between the Examination Bureau, the Judges, and the Patent Court and mutual trust between the Patent Attorneys Association and the bar association in charge of legal services can be improved only through close interaction and cooperation. In particular, the Patent Tribunal and the Patent Court, which are two axes of IP litigation, should form mutual understanding on the direction of promoting the parent patent policy. 특허품질의 핵심이라 할 수 있는 ‘강하고 법적 안전성 있는 특허권’에 대한 기업의 신뢰 없이는 R&D 투자를 통한 지속적 혁신 성장이 어렵다는 점에서 특허품질 향상을 위한 노력은 역대 정부의 핵심과제로 선정되어 꾸준히 경주되어왔다. 그동안 특허청은 심사품질 개선을 위해, 특허심판원은 심판품질 개선을 위해 백방으로 노력해 왔고 현행 특허쟁송 체제도 제도적으로는 과거의 많은 문제점을 개선하여 진일보되고 있다. 그동안 특허품질 관련 논의는 주로 심사품질 또는 심판품질의 문제로만 주로 다루어져 왔지만 ‘소송품질’ 개선의 뒷받침 없이는 결코 제고시키기 어려운 측면이 있다. 이에 본고에서는 소송품질 개선을 통해서 특허품질 향상을 도모할 수 있는 방안으로 현행특허쟁송체와 그 운용상의 문제점과 과제를 크게 4가지 방향에서 잡고 접근하여 보았다. 첫째, 특허품질을 저해해온 소송구조와 절차상으로 상존해 있는 고질적이고 근원적 문제점과 불합리한 점은 무엇인가? 둘째, 소송품질을 저해하는 요소 중의 하나로 여겨지는 특허쟁송 참여주체의 대립과 갈등을 해소할 수 있는 방법은 없는 것인가? 셋째, 지속적인 노력에도 불구하고 특허 무효 인용율이 개선되지 못하는 이유는 무엇이며 특허적격 판단에 있어 특허심판원과 특허법원의 근본적인 견해 차이가 존재하는 원인이 무엇인지? 넷째, 행정기관인 특허청과 준사법기관인 특허심판원, 사법기관인 법원간에 친특허정책(pro-patent policy)에 대한 인식의 차이와 갭이 존재하고 있는 것은 아닌지? 하는 의문점을 해소할 수 방안을 모색해 보았다. 결국 특허소송의 품질개선 문제는 구조적 문제, 제도적 문제에 관한 기본적인 제도 개선이 거의 이루어진 만큼, 이제 심사국, 심판원, 특허법원간의 협력 및 상호관계의 개선과 소송서비스를 담당하는 변리사회와 변호사회의 긴밀한 교류와 협조관계를 통해 상호신뢰를 형성해야만이 개선될 수 있을 것으로 보인다. 특히 IP소송의 두 축인 특허심판원과 특허법원은 친특허정책의 추진이란 방향성에 대한 상호 공감대를 형성하여나가야 한다.

인터넷 비즈니스모델의 특허적격성에 관한 연구

김원오 세창출판사 2002 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.26

지적재산권 상호간의 경계획정의 원리와 권리충돌 해법의 모색

김원오 한국지식재산학회 2005 産業財産權 Vol.- No.18

While copyrights, patents, designs and trademarks may individually protect a particular object, it is also possible that more than one of these forms of protection can be rendered to the same object. For example, an Applied Arts Design may be protected by several different forms of intellectual property rights. Historically, there had been such Demarcation Principles as Doctrine of Elections, Doctrine of Printed Matter, Doctrine of Functionality that drew a line between different protection forms of intellectual property rights. Especially Doctrine of Elections limited the creator of an intellectual works to only one form of protection but the Doctrine has been substantially abandoned and cumulative protection by the different intellectual property rights has been allowed in general and these Cumulative Protection Systems may cause much troubles and require resolution policy demarcating a line between intellectual property rights. One of the most difficult issues arising under these system is the copyrightability of useful articles(applied arts design) under the "separability standard" that is still an important demarcation principle. Another principle demarcating a line between intellectual property rights is a "doctrine of functionality" in respect of the competition policy, legal purpose of each intellectual property law and public domain problems for consideration. Thus, this article discusses these demarcation principles in order to avoid problems and conflicts under these dual protection systems. Furthermore, this article will analyze the provision for resolving conflicts between intellectual property rights, which is providing that prior rights holder's consent is prerequisite for the use of their registered rights afterwards. This conflict resolving system can be compared with EU legislative system which reject a trademark or design application from registration conflicting with prior copyright by another beforehand. With a comparative perspective, this article will examine the related provisions of ED. And finally this article will propose a workable method for the desirable directions of current system to be revised in the future for the solution of conflicts between Intellectual Property Rights.

상표법상 법정손해배상 청구요건과 손해배상액의 결정

김원오 전북대학교 부설법학연구소 2016 法學硏究 Vol.47 No.-

Statutory damage system without any proof of actual damage under trademark law is not familiar with us, those who have been accustomed to the principle of recovery of actual lost profit. In order to settle down this statutory damage system into our damage recovery systems, it is required to establish reasonable guidelines on how to interpret and apply the requirements of the Statutory damage claims and on the standard of calculation of statutory damages actually under trademark law including the character of a claim for. In this regard, this paper is firstly to review the various issues on basic requirements claiming statutory damages such as the trademark use requirement, trademark infringement by counterfeiting, deadline for selection requirement, intentional negligence and so on. Furthermore, the current standard of calculation for statutory damages which is a comprehensive and discretionary standards under trademark law is reviewed and specified as proper forms by reviewing cases of the United States and China, which reveals a specific, detailed considerations for it. Finally, suggests that specific basis and unit for calculation for statutory damages when forged with two or more brands or products concerned. 한미 FTA체결과정에서 미국의 요구로 도입된 상표법상 법정손해배상 제도는 실 손해 배 상원칙에 익숙한 우리법제에서는 매우 생소한 제도이다. 따라서 기왕에 도입된 상표법상 법 정손해배상제도가 안착되기 위해서는 그 청구요건을 어떻게 해석⋅적용하며 그 청구권의 성 격은 어떠한 것인지, 법정 손해배상액 산정은 어떤 기준에 의해서 무엇을 고려하여 산정하여 야 하는지 등 여러 쟁점에 대한 합리적 가이드라인을 정립해 나갈 필요가 있다. 이에 본고는 우선 상표법상 법정손해배상을 청구하기 한 기본적 청구요건인 1)등록상표의 사용 요건, 2) 위조행위에 의한 상표권 침해요건 3)고의과실 4)법정손해배상 청구로의 선택 기한 등에 대한 기초적 해석론을 전개하여 보았다. 아울러 상표법상 법정손해배상도는 재량적 손해배상액 결정을 인정하는 상표법 제65조 제5항과 마찬가지로 법정 손해배상액 산정과 관련하여 ‘변론의 전 취지와 증거조사의 결과 참작’이란 매우 포괄적이고 재량적인 기준만 두고 있다. 이에 실재 법정배상액을 5천만원의 한도내에서 어떤 기준과 고려요소를 참작하여 구체적인 법정손해액을 인정할 것인지가 실무 상 가장 긴요한 쟁점이라 생각되어 법정손해액 결정시 고려요소에 관한 미국과 중국의 사례 를 검토하여 구체적인 세부 고려사항을 정리해 보았다. 나아가 현행 상표법상 법정손해배상액을 청구할 수 있다고 규정하고 있을 뿐, 법정손해액 인정의 단위로서 구체적인 기준이 명시 되어 있지 않아 혼란이 야기될 수 있으므로 그 객체 적 기준의 설정이 필요하며 특히 위조된 상표나 상품이 2개 이상일 때 무엇을 기준단위로 삼을 것인가에 대한 기준정립이 필요하다는 제안도 하였다. 이러한 논의를 통해 자의적인 도입은 아니었다 하더라도 기왕에 상표법에 도입된 법정손 해배상제도가 조기에 정착되기를 기대해 본다.

상표위조행위에 대한 법정손해배상제도의 도입 검토

김원오 한국지식재산학회 2007 産業財産權 Vol.- No.24

Recently KORUS FTA including the Clause that "Each Party shall ... in cases of trademark counterfeiting, establish or maintain pre-established damages..." has been concluded at the end. Therefore, Korea should amend trademark laws to allow courts to award significant statutory (or “pre-established”) damages against counterfeiters. This article aims to review on the desirable statutory damages system that should be introduced into the Korean trademark law as an implementation action of KORUS FTA. This article firstly studies a statutory damages in general by comparing it with a lost-profit damages and punitive damages. Further, this article is to address issues concerning the principle requirements for the statutory damages system and proper amount by analyzing the rules and regulations of other countries each other including Lanham Act and Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Under the KORUS FTA and the American rules and regulations, a statutory damages is to be sought only to the counterfeiting of the registered trademark in use. Therefore, it is firstly required to define "trademark counterfeiting" distinguishing from the general trademark infringement. Further, trademark owners may elect statutory damages, at any time before final judgment is rendered by the trial court in recognition of situations where it is difficult for the trademark owners to prove their measurable monetary damage. It is also notable that there is some exceptions, which does not include any mark used on or in connection with goods or services of which the manufacture or producer was, at the time of the manufacture or production in question authorized to use the mark. In order to introduce it into Korean trademark law system properly, the above issues are discussed or examined and proposed a desirable directions for the revision of the Korean trademark law.

.kr도메인이름 분쟁조정 체제상의 문제점과 개선방향

김원오 법무부 2006 선진상사법률연구 Vol.- No.36

There have been still many problems in the present Internet address dispute resolution system in spite of its development. In order to give appropriate direction for the effective domain name dispute resolution in Korea, this paper examines some systematic problems of the current dual dispute resolution system of .kr domain name by the enforcement of the "Law on the Internet Address Resources". With regard to the alternative dispute resolution on .kr domain name, two types coexist in Korea ; the one is a non- binding arbitration system under the registration agreement and the other is a pure mediation system without having any mandatory character under the "Law on the Internet Address Resources" . The latter system does not consider the characteristics of domain name dispute. For example, it is quite difficult to find a compromising point with a optional mediation procedure due to the characteristic of the unity of domain name. Thus, the latter system is losing the ground of continuance by itself without being used at once after its enforcement. The formal system also has a week point in that it is not established by the law. On the other hands, WIPO's ccTLDs Best Practice and other foreign countries' practice shows that a alternative dispute resolution system on ccTLDs must have any mandatory character. Therefore, a pure mediation system under the "Law on the Internet Address Resources" should be abolished and substituted by the non- binding arbitration procedure having mandatory character through the revision of the "Law on the Internet Address Resources". 본고는 현행 인터넷주소 분쟁 조정제도의 제반 문제점 중에서 『인터넷주소자원에관한법률』의 시행으로 이원화 되어 있는 현행 . kr 도메인이름 분쟁해결제도 체제상의 문제점과 이를 일원화하기 위한 해결방안을 모색해 보고자하는 것이다. 현재 우리나라의 .kr에 대한 ADR 방식의 분쟁조정은 『인터넷주소자원에관한법률』에 의한 임의조정과 비구속적 중재 형식의『약관에 근거한 도메인이름분쟁조정규정』에 의한 강제적 분쟁해결제도가 병존하는 이원화된 시스템으로 운영되고 있다. 그런데 이러한 주소자원법에 의한 임의적 조정제도는 다음과 같은 점에서 본질적인 문제가 있는 체제이어서 존속의 근거를 상실하고 있다. 우선 임의조정의 일반적 장점만 고려한 나머지 도메인이름 분쟁의 특수성 등을 전혀 고려하지 못하고 있다. 즉 ⅰ) 도메인이름은 그 유일성으로 인해 임의조정으로 타협점을 찾기 어렵다는 점, ⅱ) 도메인이름 분쟁은 양단간 승패가 명확하여 패자가 조정안을 수용할 기대가능성이 없어서 UDRP와 같은 강제적 분쟁해결절차가 필수적으로 요구된다는 점을 간과하여 실효성을 결하고 있다. 뿐만 아니라, 인터넷주소정책상의 견지에서 볼 때에도 ⅲ) 부정한 목적의 도메인이름 선점 (cyber-squatting)을 조장할 우려가 있어 정당권리자 보호가 미흡해지고, ADR의 본질인 사법절차 대체 효과를 기대하기 곤란하다는 난점을 지니고 있는 체제이다. ⅳ) 더욱이 WIPO의 국가도메인 보고서(ccTLDs Best Practice) 권고안에서 필요최소요건으로 요구하고 있는 강제적 절차의 성격을 수용하지 못함으로써 국제적 의무와 추세에도 어긋나는 체제라고 할 수 있다. ⅴ) 이 밖에도 법 시행 후 한번도 이용되지 못한 사실은 실효성이 전혀 없는 제도임을 강변해 주고 있고 반면 실효성 확보차원에서 시행되고 있는 강제조정제도는 주소자원법의 입법의도를 훼손하는 문제점을 안고 있어서 이러한 체제는 적절히 변경될 수밖에 없다. 따라서 주소자원법상 조정관련 규정을 재정비하여 조정제도의 방식과 절차를 현재 약관에 의한 비구속적 중재절차의 내용이 대체로 수용되도록 변경(변경의 대상은 양제도의 비교표를 통하여 도출가능)함으로써 분쟁해결서비스 체제 일원화를 꾀할 필요가 있다. 대체되어야 할 ADR 방식으로는 최소필요 요건인 강제적 성격만 동반된다면 홍콩과 같이 중재합의(신청인의 합의는 신청서 제출시에 구함)에 근거한 “(구속적)중재”의 성격을 띠는 분쟁해결서비스체제도 고려할 수 있을 것이다. 혹은, 임의 조정의 장점을 반드시 살리고자 한다면 영국과 같이 임의조정을 비구속적 중재의 필요적 전심절차로 삼아 임의조정에 실패하는 경우에 자동적으로 비구속적 중재절차로 자동이관 되는 방식도 대안이 될 수 있다.

영업비밀의 비밀관리성 요건

김원오,이형정 원광대학교 법학연구소 2011 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.3

The purpose of this study is to analyze the legal protection system of trade secrets in Korea from a standpoint of secrecy and management, and show the guideline in comment and legislation. Trade secrets became the legal protective object in the early 1990s in Korea through the revision of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law by the external factor, that is, demand of international harmony on the system of intellectual property. In the consequence of this reason, the company and the nation are rarely concerned about the legal protection system of trade secrets, and lawsuit is changed. Economic espionage is increased and the company and the nation’s concerns and lawsuits on trade secrets are increased. As a result, the legal protection system of trade secret is fixed as necessary in Korea. In this essay first look at the existing argument for secrecy and management requirement in Trade secret law. In addition, it examine the secrecy and management guideline in Korea and guideline’s a point in drawback. The essay then examine critical discussion of existing argument ; a brief history of Trade secret law, new argument , the standard justifications and the potential benefits for the secrecy and management. The existing argument is no standard justifications and verification of potenial benefits. It might be able to deny the protection for trade secret law because the negative discussion is too critical. So, the standard justifications and potential benefits should be analyzed more carefully before any decision about the secrecy and management requirement is made. Also nature and level of trade secrecy and character and practice of industry should be analyzed more carefully. Then it should define the reasonable and effective secrecy and management of trade secret law.

부정경쟁방지법상 신설된 일반조항의 법적성격과 그 적용의 한계

김원오 한국지식재산학회 2014 産業財産權 Vol.- No.45

Recently a revised provision containing a General Clause(Article 2, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10) to the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act has been introduced in Korea. It says that “An act to use the product of significant effort and investment made by a competitor without permission, for one’s own business and in a manner contrary to business ethics or the order of fair competition, and through this to gain unjust profit by taking advantage of the effort and investment of the competitor and violate the competitor’s profit legally entitled to protection”. The purpose of this revision is to seek a proper measure against new and different types of unfair competition. However, the newly introduced General Clause has some characteristics and limitations comparing to the General Clause of Germany or Switzerland. First, it is not a universal but a supplementary characteristics so that our general clause can be applied selectively only to the specific provision listed Article 2, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph. Second, unlike Germany and Switzerland, the purpose of the Act is limited for the protection of competitioner’s interests without regard to the consumer protection or public interests. Third, it’s subject matter is limited to the exploitation of others' achievement among many kinds of general unfair competition acts, which is codified on the Suprem Court’s decision recognized the tort liability. Fourth, the newly introduced General Clause has also limitation in perspective of legal relief. Furthermore, the introduction of the new General Clause require rebuilding a new relationship between Unfair Competition Prevention Act and Antitrust & Fair trade Law that has also its own General Clause. Relationship between Unfair Competition Prevention Act and intellectual property laws, the general tort doctrine also require some reconsideration. This paper deals with the above said characteristics and limitations of the the new General Clause. Furthermore, this paper examines some question and Legal issue caused by the interface between the intellectual property theory and the general tort doctrine and Antitrust & Fair trade Law. Finally, this paper discusses the desirable approach for rebuilding a new relationship between Unfair Competition Prevention Act and Antitrust & Fair trade Law.