분자 간 거리 감소에 의한 펜타센 박막트랜지스터의 전하 이동도 향상

정태호,Jung, Tae-Ho 한국전기전자재료학회 2012 전기전자재료학회논문지 Vol.25 No.7

In this study, the influence of the intermolecular distance on the charge mobility in a pentacene thin-film was investigated. In order to increase the mobility which depends on the ${\pi}$-overlap between molecules, the intermolecular distance was shortened by compressive force along the conduction channel. Pentacene thin-film was fabricated on flexible substrates bent outward at different radii to stretch the gate dielectric surface and then the substrates were unbent, producing the compressive force to the film. The result showed that the mobility increased proportionally to the strain applied during the pentacene deposition and the molecular packing inside a grain was not optimal for the charge transport.

영업비밀의 요건과 업무상 배임죄에 관한 비판적 고찰

정태호(Tae-Ho Jung) 세창출판사 2012 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.66

Article 2, Section 2 of Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act states that "Trade Secret" means information, including a production method, sale method, useful technical or business information for business activity, that is not known publicly, is the subject of considerable effort to maintain its secrecy and has independent economic value. Particularly, given the article, the "maintaining secrecy" is an important standard of judgment for trade secret. However, recently most courts is applying a crime of occupational breach of trust of the Criminal Act Article 356 to many cases related to infringement of trade secret based on "important business assets" since they strictly determine the standards on the existence of "maintaining secrecy" based on the application of the term "considerable effort". However, diverse analyses and arguments from a case can be occurred for the abuse of important business assets because the Criminal Act has not clearly defined the meaning of the "important business assets". According to this situations, it may be actually meaningless to insist on an act of infringement of trade secret based on Article 2, Section 2 of Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act. Thus, this paper studies the relations between requirements for trade secret and a crime of occupational breach of trust focusing on the recent Supreme Court Decision No.2009Do3915; June 30. 2011, which has trade secret and important business assets cases in it. Furthermore, this paper insists on relaxing standards of requirements for trade secret and critically analyses and examines the abuse of a crime of occupational breach of trust based on important business assets from the subject case.

저작권법상 온라인에서의 허락없는 번역물에 관한 시정권고 제도의 한계

정태호(Jung, Tae Ho) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2017 과학기술과 법 Vol.8 No.2

Article 133-3 of the Copyright Act states that where the Korea Copyright Protection Agency, as a result of investigation into information and communications network of an online service provider, has found a fact that illegal copies, etc. have been interactively transmitted, it may recommend an online service provider to take corrective measures falling under the following subparagraphs, following deliberation by the Copyright Protection Deliberation Committee: 1. Warnings to reproducers or interactive transmitters of illegal copies, etc.; 2. Deletion and suspension of interactive transmission of illegal copies, etc.; 3. Suspension of accounts of reproducers or interactive transmitters who have repeatedly transmitted illegal copies, etc. . By the way, whether the above provision can be applied to translations separated from moving images is controversial. I think it is not reasonable that the Korea Copyright Protection Agency makes recommendations of correction on unauthorized online translations since it is difficult that the Copyright Protection Deliberation Committee determines substantial similarity, substitutability in market, etc. for derivative Works such as translations.

의약품 명칭의 상표법상 기술성 판단에 관한 고찰

정태호(Jung Tae Ho) 원광대학교 법학연구소(의생명과학법센터) 2016 의생명과학과 법 Vol.16 No.-

상표법 제33조 제1항 제3호(이하, “해당 규정”이라 함)에 따르면, 그 상품의 산지·품질·원재료·효능·용도·수량·형상·가격·생산방법·가공방법·사용방법 또는 시기를 보통으로 사용하는 방법으로 표시한 표장만으로 된 상표는 등록을 받을 수 없다. 해당 규정은 상표의 식별력에 관한 것이다. 이와 같이 상표법은 상표가 기술성이 인정되면 식별력이 없는 것으로 본다. 현재 의약품 명칭의 상표법상 기술성 판단에 관하여 기존의 대법원 판결과 최근의 특허법원 판결 사이에 다소 간의 차이점이 보인다. 즉, 대법원 판결들 증 일부가 일반 수요자를 기준으로 의약품 명칭의 기술성을 판단한 것들이 있는데, 최근의 특허법원 판결들은 주로 의사나 약사와 같은 전문가를 기준으로 의약품 명칭의 기술성을 판단하고 있다. 한편, 상표는 처음으로 의약품 명칭을 만든 자의 부주의에 의해서 상품이나 서비스에 관하여 기술적인 것으로 인정되어 상표등록이 되지 못할 수도 있다. 그러므로 의약품 명칭에 대한 상표권을 확보하기 위해서는 의약품 명칭을 상표로서 관리하는 데에 특별한 주의를 기울일 필요가 있다. 결국 이 논문은 대법원 판결들과 특허법원 판결들을 분석하여 의약품 명칭의 상표법상 기술성 판단에 관한 법리에 관하여 고찰하고, 이상과 같은 쟁점들을 해결하기 위한 바람직한 방안을 시사하고 있다. Aricle 33(1)3 of the Trademark Act(hereinafter referred to as “the subject provision”) states that trademark registration may not be granted for a trademark falling under any trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating in a common way the origin, quality, raw materials, efficacy, use, quantity, shape, price, production method, processing method, using method or time of the goods. The subject provision is on descriptiveness of a trademark. The Trademark Act regards descriptiveness of a trademark as the absence of distinctiveness. In the present, there are some d​ifferences in determining descriptiveness of the name of a medicine in the Trademark Act between the existing Supreme court decisions and the recent Patent court decisions. The reason for the above is that parts of the Supreme court decisions determined descriptiveness of the name of a medicine on the basis of general consumers but the recent Patent court decisions determined that mainly on the basis of specialists such as pharmacists or doctors. On the other hand, a trademark may not be registered by being recognized as descriptiveness on goods or services through carelessness of a person who made the name of a medicine for the first time. Therefore, it is necessary to pay particular attention to managing the name of a medicine as a trademark in order to secure a trademark right for the above name. In conclusion, this paper studies on legal principles of determining descriptiveness of the name of a medicine in the Trademark Act by analyzing the Supreme court decisions and the Patent court decisions and suggests desirable methods for resolving the above issues.

상표법상 불사용취소심판에 있어서 웹사이트상 광고와 접속이 등록상표의 사용에 미치는 영향

정태호 ( Jung Tae-ho ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2008 외법논집 Vol.31 No.-

Under Article 73, Paragraphs 1, Item 3 of the Trademark Act, where a request for cancellation of trademark registration based on non-use is filed by a third party, the registration of such trademark may be cancelled for the reason of non-use unless the holder of the trademark right proves the following: (i) Within three years prior to the registration of the request for cancellation, (ii) in Korea, (iii) any of the holder of a trademark right, exclusive licensee or non-exclusive licensee, (iv) in connection with any of the designated goods pertaining to the request, (v) has used the registered trademark. In a concrete case, is a foreign company who holds a registered trademark in Korea, considered to be sufficiently using the registered trademark as far as the company's website contains the advertisement even if the company has never sold such goods in Korea? whether a certain advertisement is the use of a registered trademark in Korea is determined in a comprehensive manner in consideration of all relevant factors. In Japan, the following judgment rendered by the Intellectual Property High Court is an example of the case in which an advertisement that had been posted on a website was not recognized as the use of a registered trademark (December 20, 2005 Judgment of the Intellectual Property High Court, 2005 (Gyo-ke) No.10095): "The following facts are found: the Defendant has been posting advertisements relating to the provision of the designated goods "pizza" on its website; said website can be accessed from Japan; and the website can be immediately located if searched by several Japanese search engines by using the word constituting the registered trademark. However, said website is set up on a server in the country of the Defendant, and in addition, all contents thereof are indicated in English, and thus it cannot be recognized that the website is intended for Japanese consumers. Although said website can be accessed from Japan and is searchable by Japanese search engines, this fact is a matter of course as a website on the internet. It cannot be asserted that, based on this fact, the advertisement through said website falls under the use of the registered trademark in Japan." Reviewing the above case, it is important to prove that there are some relations between the advertisement of a registered trademark on the internet website and domestic consumers(Domestic relations, Inlandsbezug in Germany) in order to avoid the cancellation of a trademark registration based on non-use.

디자인보호법상 물품의 기능을 확보하는 데에 불가결한 형상만으로 된 디자인에 관한 고찰

정태호(Jung, Tae-Ho) 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2016 法學論叢 Vol.35 No.-

디자인보호법 제34조 제4호에서는 “물품의 기능을 확보하는 데에 불가결한 형상만으로 된 디자인”은 디자인등록을 받을 수 없다고 규정하고 있다. 그런데 해당 규정에 관한 대법원 판결로서는 유일하게 대법원 2006. 1. 13. 선고 2005후841 판결(이하, “대상판결”이라 함)만이 존재하므로, 대상판결을 분석함으로써 해당 규정의 판단 법리를 검토해 볼 필요가 있다. ‘물품의 기능을 확보하는 데에 불가결한 형상’이란 물품의 기술적 기능을 확보하기 위해 필연적으로 결정되어 버린 형상을 말하는데, ‘물품의 기능에 관련된 형상’이라고 하더라도 그 기능을 확보할 수 있는 선택 가능한 대체적인 형상이 존재한다면 해당 규정에서 말하는 물품의 기능적 형상에 해당한다고 할 수 없다. 대상판결은 ‘물품의 기능을 확보하는 데에 불가결한 형상’의 범위에 대해서 수요자들이 그 물품을 볼 때 특정 형상을 당연히 있어야 할 부분으로 여김으로써 그 형상에 대해서 별다른 심미감을 느끼지 못하는 정도까지 포함되어야 한다는 것을 보여주고 있다. 그리고 대상판결을 통해서 대법원이 디자인의 기능성 판단에 있어서 ‘유일기능기준’을 적용하고 있음도 역시 확인할 수 있다. 결국 디자인에서 그 본질과 관련되어 기능성과 장식성 간의 경계는 더욱 모호해지고 있고, 그 경계를 명확히 구분하는 것이 점점 어려워져 가는 시대적 상황 속에서 디자인보호법상 “물품의 기능을 확보하는 데에 불가결한 형상만으로 된 디자인”에 관한 해석은 더욱 중요하여 질 것이다. 따라서 대상판결에서의 판단 법리를 토대로 하여 이에 관한 심도있는 연구가 앞으로 구체적으로 이루어져야 한다. Article 34, (4) of the Design Protection Act states that “a design consisting solely of a shape that is indispensable to secure the functions of the article” shall not be registered. By the way, there is only Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu841 Decided January 13, 2006(hereinafter referred to as “the subject decision”) as a Supreme Court Decision related to this provision. Therefore, we need to study legal principles of determination on this provision by analyzing the subject decision. ‘A shape that is indispensable to secure the functions of the article’ means a shape that is decided to be indispensable to secure the functions of the article and ‘a shape related to the functions of the article’ can’t be a functional shape of the article on this provision if there is any alternative shape to secure the functions of the article. The subject decision shows that the scope of ‘a shape that is indispensable to secure the functions of the article’ should reach the extent that consumers don’t feel aesthetic particularly on the shape by regarding the shape as a indispensable part when they see the article. And according to the subject decision, we can see that Supreme Court have applied ‘solely functional standard’ to determining the functionality of design. In conclusion, because of ambiguous boundary between functionality and ornamentality on the nature of a design, it becomes to be more difficult for us to distinguish between the two and thus it will be more important that we determine whether a certain design is “a design consisting solely of a shape that is indispensable to secure the functions of the article” in Design Protection Act. Therefore, we should make an in-depth study on this provision concretely from now on based on legal principles of determination in the subject decision.

개정 디자인보호법에서의 화상디자인제도에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 일본 개정 의장법상 논의를 중심으로-

정태호 ( Tae Ho Jung ) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 문화.미디어.엔터테인먼트법연구소 2021 문화.미디어.엔터테인먼트 법 Vol.15 No.1

개정 디자인보호법은 화상디자인제도에 관하여 새로운 체계를 도입하였다. 기기의 조작에 이용되거나 기능의 발휘에 한정하는 화상디자인만 물품성의 개념을 해체하여 보호하는 것으로 규정하고 있다. 그리고 개정 디자인보호법은 실시의 개념과 관련해서도 화상 자체를 전기통신회선의 방법으로 제공하는 것 등을 새롭게 규정하고 있다. 그런데 이러한 개정 디자인보호법은 일본 개정 의장법의 화상디자인제도를 도입한 것이라고 볼 수 있다. 이에 따라 개정 디자인보호법에서 화상디자인제도에 관하여 예상되는 문제점들을 해결하기 위해서 우리는 일본 개정 의장법의 화상디자인제도에 관한 입법 배경과 여러 가지 비판적인 논의들을 검토할 필요가 있다. 특히 화상디자인제도가 일본에서 도입되기 전에 논의된 새로운 화상디자인제도의 경제적인 효과 등에 관한 비판적인 견해들을 참조할 필요가 있다고 생각한다. 그러한 검토를 토대로 하여 우리나라의 개정 디자인보호법에서 발생할 수 있는 기존의 보호방식과의 혼란 초래의 문제, 구법상 선출원된 등록디자인과의 유사 판단 및 이용·저촉의 문제, 저작권과의 저촉의 문제, 특허권과의 저촉의 문제, 공업상 이용가능성에서의 대량생산의 의미와의 충돌 문제 등을 해결해야 할 것이다. 개정 디자인보호법상으로는 물품에 구현되는 화상에 대한 보호와 화상 자체에 대한 보호가 혼재되기 때문에, 이러한 것을 방지하기 위해서는 디자인심사기준을 정비하여 운용상의 묘를 기할 필요가 있을 것이다. 궁극적으로는 기존의 ‘물품’이라는 개념보다 유럽연합 등에서 사용되는 용어인 ‘제품’이라는 개념을 도입해서 제품성의 범주안에서 대량생산이 가능한 것들을 디자인보호법상 디자인의 보호대상으로 삼는 것이 바람직하다고 생각한다. 그리고 이에 대한 입법에 관한 연구도 필요하다고 생각한다. The revised Design Protection Act introduced a new system for graphic image design system. Only graphic image designs that are used to Operation of the Devices or that are limited to the exercise of functions are provided as protecting the concept of article property by dismantling it in the revised Design Protection Act. And the revised Design Protection Act also provides newly that the graphic image itself is offered by means of telecommunication lines in relation to the concept of working of a design. However, we understand that the revised Design Protection Act introduced the graphic design system of the japanese revised Design Protection Act. Accordingly, in order to solve the expected problems of the graphic design system in the revised Design Protection Act, we need to review the legislative background and various critical discussions on the graphic design system of the japanese revised Design Protection Act. In particular, I think that it is necessary to refer to critical opinions on the economic effects of the new graphic design system which was discussed before it was introduced in Japan. Based on such a review, we should resolve the problems on confusions with existing protection methods, judgments of similarity and conflicts with registered designs applied previously under the old law, conflicts with copyrights, conflicts with patent rights and conflicts with the meaning of mass production in the concept of design capable of being used in industrial manufacture in the revised Design Protection Act. Since the protection of graphic images embodied in articles and the protection of graphic images themselves are mixed in the application of the revised Design Protection Act, it will be necessary to make operational skills for preventing this problems by improving the design examination guidelines. In conclusion, I think that it is desirable to introduce the concept of “product”, a term used in design acts of the European Union, rather than the existing concept of “article” to mean things that can be mass-produced within the category of “product” as protection of design under the Design Protection Act. And we also need to study legislation on this.

어파인 프로젝션 알고리즘의 블록 조합을 위한 선택적 업데이트 기법

정태호(Tae Ho Jung),김정희(Jung Hee Kim),남상원(Sang Won Nam) 대한전기학회 2012 정보 및 제어 심포지엄 논문집 Vol.2012 No.4

역혼동과 상표권 남용의 관계에 관한 고찰

정태호(TAE-HO, JUNG) 인하대학교 법학연구소 2016 法學硏究 Vol.19 No.1

역혼동이란, 상표권자 내지 선행 사용자가 있음에도 불구하고 후행 사용자가 그 상표와 동일 또는 유사한 상표를 동일 또는 유사한 상품에 사용한 결과 수요자들이 선행 상표 사용자의 상품이나 서비스의 출처를 오히려 후행 사용자로 오인·혼동하게 되는 경우를 말한다. 최근의 대법원 2014. 8. 20. 선고 2012다6059 판결(이하, “대상판결”이라함)은 이와 관련된 사안으로서 역혼동과 상표권 남용의 관계에 대해서 구체적으로 다루고 있다. 대상판결에서는 어떤 상표가 정당하게 출원․등록된 이후에 그 등록상표와 동일․유사한 상표를 그 지정상품과 동일․유사한 상품에 정당한 이유 없이 사용한 결과 그 사용상표가 국내의 일반 수요자들에게 알려지게 되었다고 하더라도, 그 사용상표와 관련하여 얻은 신용과 고객흡인력은 그 등록상표의 상표권을 침해하는 행위에 의한 것으로서 보호받을 만한 가치가 없고 그러한 상표의 사용을 용인한다면 우리 상표법이 취하고 있는 등록주의 원칙의 근간을 훼손하게 되므로, 위와 같은 상표 사용으로 인하여 시장에서 형성된 일반 수요자들의 인식만을 근거로 하여 그 상표 사용자를 상대로 한 등록상표의 상표권에 기초한 침해금지 또는 손해배상 등의 청구가 권리남용에 해당한다고 볼 수는 없다고 판시하고 있다. 후발적인 사용에 의해서 후행 상표가 상당한 인지도를 얻어 역혼동이 발생할 수 있는 상황하에서 후행 상표사용자인 피고가 자신의 상표에 대한 인지도에 근거하여 권리남용을 주장할 수 없다는 것을 최초로 판시한 것으로서 역혼동과 권리남용의 관계에 대해서도 설시해주고 있다는 점에서 대상판결은 중요한 의의를 가지고 있다. 그런데 대상판결을 통해 기존에 상표법상 상표권 침해에 관하여 구체적으로 다루어지지 않았던 역혼동에 대해서 학계나 실무계에서 관련 이론을 명확하게 정립할 필요가 있다고 보인다. 특히 상표법상 역혼동과 관련된 규정을 명시하는 등 상표권 침해에 관하여 역혼동의 입법화를 고려할 필요가 있다고 생각되며, 역혼동에 의한 상표권 침해인정 시에 손해배상액 등의 산정 등에서의 문제점 등을 해결하여야 할 것이다. Reverse confusion occurs when the second user(Junior user) becomes better known than the owner of trademark right or the first user(senior user). In reverse confusion, the first user looses the opportunity to control its own reputation and goodwill and consumers even disrespect the first user assuming the second user is the original. Recently, Supreme Court decided on the relation between reverse confusion and abuse of trademark right concretely through Supreme Court Decision 2012Da6059 Decided August 20, 2014(hereinafter referred to as “the subject decision”). The subject decision states that though any other person use the mark identical with or similar to the registered trademark without a legitimate reason and the used mark acquire brand recognition of consumers after a trademark of trademark owner is applied and registered legitimately, goodwill and customer attraction of the used mark isn’t worth of protection as the effect made by infringement of trademark right. And the subject decision also states that abuse of trademark right can’t be applied to the exercise of the trademark right based on only brand recognition of consumers since principle of registration in our Trademark Act can be damaged if goodwill of the used mark is accepted like that. The subject decision has great historical significance since the decision states firstly that the second user(Junior user) can’t assert abuse of trademark right based on only brand recognition of consumers in case the second used mark acquire considerable brand recognition by the second use and reverse confusion occurs. But theory on reverse confusion related to infringement of trademark right needs to be established more clearly through the subject decision in academic circles and practice area. Especially, we should consider that a regulation of infringement of trademark right by reverse confusion and a legal basis on calculating damages related to that is established on the Trademark Act.

한 벌의 물품의 디자인의 법제 분석과 문제점에 관한 고찰

정태호 ( Tae Ho Jung ) 한남대학교 과학기술법연구원 2015 과학기술법연구 Vol.21 No.2

Article 40 of the Design Protection Act states that (1) An application for design registration shall be filed for each design, (2) Any person desiring to file an application for design registration shall be subject to the classification of articles prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy and show principle of One Application Per Design Registration. By the way, Design of One Set of Articles shall be a representative system among exceptions of this principle of One Application Per Design Registration. Article 42 of the Design Protection Act states that (1) Where two or more articles are used together as one set of articles, and where the design of such set of articles has a unity as a whole, the design may be applied for registration as one design, (2) The classification of a set of articles referred to in paragraph (1) shall be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy. The system of Design of One Set of Articles is a specific system that only exists in Korea and Japan, but there has almost not been separative study on characteristics and interpretative problems of this system and Design Protection Act amended all in 2013 and entered into force in 2014 come to need to be studied on wide interpretation of this law more in this system of Design of One Set of Articles. Therefore, this paper studies on specific requisites for establishment and registration, application procedures and relations with a design right, etc. concretely after studying fundamental significance, introduction background and history, etc. of Design of One Set of Articles in detail. And this paper makes mention of theories on amendment of this system additionally after it studies legislation analysis on Design of One Set of Articles and several problems all on this system, in which there has almost not been studied in the past. In conclusion, Design of One Set of Articles is a system for protecting designs which give a unity of beauty as two or more articles, but abolitionism of this system is coming to rise up because rather registrable kinds of One Set of Articles is restricted and thus there are problems on being discrepant from fast trend of change of design industry now. Therefore, I think it is reasonable that restriction of kinds of One Set of Articles shall be removed or, scope of one article or one design shall be enlarged and thus One Set of Articles shall be protected in the scope of One Application Per Design Registration.