http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
상표 사후 위임 분쟁해결절차(PDDRP)와 미국 상표법상 사이버스쿼팅의 기여책임에 관한 연구
박유선 ( Yu Sun Park ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2011 고려법학 Vol.0 No.61
On June 20, 2011, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved the final version of the new generic top-level domain (gTLD) Applicant Guidebook at the ICANN meeting in Singapore. The introduction of the new gTLD program is expected to expand consumer choices and provide more opportunities for companies, but at the same time it could lead to increased trademark infringement through cybersquatting. Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) is a part of the new dispute resolution mechanisms proposed by ICANN to resolve cybersquatting disputes. The new gTLD registry operator is required to submit to the mandatory administrative proceeding commenced by trademark holders and implement the decisions made according to the PDDRP. Under the PDDRP, the registry operator is liable for the registration and use of the domain name if the registry operator engages in affirmative conduct to cause or materially contribute to the gTLD infringing the complainant`s trademark. The registry operator is also liable if there is the registry operator`s affirmative conduct to engage in a substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to profit from the sale of trademark infringing domain names and the systematic registration of domain names within the gTLD that are infringing the complainant`s trademark. The PDDRP denies the registry operator`s liability when the registry operator has knowledge of the existence of infringing domain names within its registry or it does not take any action necessary to monitor the registrations. The U.S. Supreme Court held that if a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe a trademark, or if it continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement, the manufacturer or distributor is contributorially responsible for any harm done as a result of the deceit. Where the defendant supplies the infringer with a service, courts consider the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third party`s means of infringement. The PDDRP does not hold the registry operator responsible for trademark infringement if it knowingly permitted, or could not have reasonably been unaware of infringing domain names within its registry. The PDDRP does not encompass potential instances of willful blindness in the management of new gTLDs and it seriously undermines the PDDRP`s intended effectiveness. On the other hand, trademark holders carry a relatively heavy burden of proof because a complainant is required to prove the requirements under PDDRP by clear and convincing evidence. In order to achieve its purpose, PDDRP should be implemented to ensure a balance between the protection of trademark holder`s right and the fair and effective management of new gTLDs.
데이터 분석 도구 활용을 기반으로 한 Data-Informed 디자인 프로세스 제안
박유선(Park, Yu sun),이지현(Lee, Ji Hyun) 한국디자인리서치학회 2021 한국디자인리서치 Vol.6 No.3
본 연구는 빅데이터를 활용한 디자인이 중요해짐에 따라 데이터 활용 초보자들에게 실무자들의 Data-Informed 디자인 프로세스를 손쉽게 전달하기 위한 목적으로 진행되었다. 본 연구의 진행 방법은 사용자 경험(user experience)디자인과 Data-Informed디자인의 공통점과 차이점에 대해 문헌 연구를 통해 조사하고, Data-Informed 프로세스에서 활용되는 데이터 애널리틱스와 비주얼 애널리틱스의 활용방안에 대해 사례 분석 연구를 수행하였다. 특히, 이중 대표 도구로 구글 애널리틱스와 뷰저블을 선정해 기능들을 분석하였다. 이후 Data-Informed 을 활용한 프로세스 제안의 필요성에 대해 고찰하였고 실무 Data-Informed디자인 과정을 파악하기 위해 실무 전문가를 대상으로 데이터 분석 도구 활용 방식, 데이터 활용 프로세스에 대해 조사하여 1:1 인터뷰 내용을 주제 분석(thematic analysis)을 통해 총 10개의 테마로 정의하였다. 이후 도출된 테마와 문헌조사, 인터뷰 내용을 통해 ‘데이터 분석 도구 활용을 기반으로 한 Data-Informed 디자인 프로세스’ 결과물을 제안했다. 결과물에 대한 유용성 평가를 리커트 5점 척도와 1:1 인터뷰로 진행하여 Data-Informed 디자인 진행시에 개발된 ‘데이터 분석 도구 활용을 기반으로 한 Data-Informed 디자인 프로세스’가 새로운 방향성을 제안하는 역할로서 활용될 수 있고 향후 연구를 통해 프로세스를 발전시켜 실무에서 효과적으로 적용 될 것으로 기대한다. In this work, we conducted a literature study to investigate the commonalities and differences between existing user experience designs and data-informed designs and to summarize data analytics and visual analytics used in the Data-Informed process. Among them, Google Analytics and Beusable were selected as representative analysis tools to analyze their functions. We also consider the need for process proposals utilizing Data-Informed. In order to understand the practical Data-Informed design process, the data analysis tool utilization process and data utilization process were investigated by working-level experts and the interviews were defined as a total of 10 themes through Thematic analysis. Subsequently, the results of the Data-Informed Design Process Based on the Utilization of Data Analysis Tools were proposed through the derived themes, literature surveys and interviews. We conduct usability evaluations on the results on a 5-point scale and 1:1 interview, and expect that the Data-Informed Design Process based on the use of data analysis tools developed during the Data-Informed design process can be used as a role to propose new direction and will be developed and applied effectively in practice through future research.
고압처리에 의한 Norovirus Surrogate의 불활성화
이희정 ( Hee Jung Lee ),오은경 ( Eun Gyoung Oh ),유홍식 ( Hong Sik Yu ),신순범 ( Soon Bum Shin ),박유선 ( Yu Sun Park ),신윤경 ( Yun Kyung Shin ),박정준 ( Jung Jun Park ),윤호동 ( Ho Dong Yoon ) 한국수산학회 2009 한국수산과학회지 Vol.42 No.3
Norovirus surrogate (feline calicivirus) was inactivated by treatment at 50,000 psi for 60 sec by 6.8-log10?TCID50?mL-1. Tissue obtained from oyster (digestive gland, gill and mantle) was qualitatively destroyed and distorted by treatment at pressure greater than 5,000 psi for 60 sec. High pressure treatment induced progressive changes in the color of the oyster adductor muscle. High pressure treatment effectively reduced norovirus surrogate but induced conformational changes in the tissue and color of oyster flesh.
한미자유무역협정(FTA)에 따른 도메인이름 분쟁해결의 개선방안에 관한 연구
박유선 한국중재학회 2007 중재연구 Vol.17 No.2
As Korea has reached a free trade agreement with the United States of America, it is required to provide an appropriate procedure to ".kr" domain name disputes based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP). Currently, Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee(IDRC) established under Article 16 of the Act on Internet Address Resources provides the dispute resolution proceedings to resolve ".kr" domain name disputes. While the IDRC's proceeding is similar to the UDRP administrative proceeding in procedural aspects, the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy that is established by the IDRC and that applies to disputes involving ".kr" domain names is very different from the UDRP for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) in substantial aspects. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement(KORUS FTA), it is expected that either the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy to be amended to adopt the UDRP or the IDRC to examine the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy in order to harmonize it with the principles established in the UDRP. It is a common practice of cybersquatters to warehouse a number of domain names without any active use of these domain names after their registration. The Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides that the complainant may request to transfer or delete the registration of the disputed domain name if the registrant registered, holds or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This provision lifts the complainant's burden of proof to show the respondent's bad faith because the complainant is only required to prove one of the three bad faiths which are : registration in bad faith, holding in bad faith, or use in bad faith. The aforementioned resolution procedure is different from the UDRP regime which requires the complainant, in compliance with paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the complainant carries heavy burden of proof under the UDRP. The IDRC should deny the complaint if the respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The UDRP sets out three illustrative