독일저작권법상 불행사로 인한 저작물이용권의 철회

( Hyo Jil Ahn ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논총 Vol.38 No.4

It is permitted that an author has the right of revocation in Article 41 of the German Copyright Act for the non-exercising of exploitation right. Logically, right of revocation based on non-exercise may apply only to an exclusive exploitation right. In the case of the exclusive right of publication (including online publication) and publication right (only for paper publication) in Korea, the owner of these rights stands under legal obligation for publishing according to Article 58 and Article 63bis of the Korean Copyright Act. If he violates the obligation, the owner of the author’s property rights may notify him of the termination of his exclusive right of publication under Article 60 and Article 63bis of the Korean Copyright Act. Therefore, the necessity to introduce the Right of Revocation applied only to the right of exclusive publication and the right of publication is not considered seriously. However, in contracting for establishing exclusive right of publication, we will need to introduce the right of revocation prescribed in Article 41 of German Copyright Act as long as the contract prescribes only the aspect of the right of publication of the licensee without his obligation to publish. Furthermore, it needs to consider the introduction of the right of revocation in the German Copyright Act, if Korea would introduce in the future the exclusive license system applied to all types of exploitations. Next, granting the right of revocation like the German Copyright Act in Korea, it is should be determined whether the right of revocation may apply to film works (See Article 90 of German Copyright Act). The reason why the German Copyright Act does not permit the right of revocation in cases of non-exercise of copyright film works is to guarantee the use of films that have significant production costs. However, the types of exploitation are too various; a new type of exploitation which has significant costs like the film works will appear in the near future depending on the change of technology or economic conditions. Also in case of the publication as the most general type of exploitation, the publication of art books or music books needs a significant production cost. Therefore, I think, there is a little doubt that exercising the right of revocation should be restricted to only film works. Lastly, there is a problem of who has and exercises the right of revocation. The right of revocation for non-exercise is, in principle, made to protect the author’s moral right to create work which is open to the public. However, if royalties are fixed in proportion to the amount of the exploitation of works, the author can protect his economic profits by exercising the right of revocation. Therefore, if only the economic aspect is emphasized, the right of revocation for non-exercise could be available to not only the author but also the holder of author’s property rights.

일반 논문 : 저작권법상 공연보상청구권의 범위

안효질 ( Hyo Jil Ahn ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2012 고려법학 Vol.0 No.66

근래에 커피숍, 백화점 등 매장에서 틀어주는 배경음악과 관련한 법적분쟁이 잇달아 일어나고 있다. 지난 5월에는 대형 프랜차이즈 커피전문점인 ``스타벅스`` 에서 판매용이 아닌 편집 음반을 사용하여 매장내 배경음악 서비스를 제공하는 것은 저작권법 제29조 제2항의 저작재산권제한사유에 해당하지 않아 저작권침해로 보아야 한다는 대법원판결이 선고되었다. 이는 매장 사업자와 저작권자 사이의 분쟁이었다. 이어 최근에는 백화점 등 매장에서 온라인 매장배경음악서비스 사업자로부터 전송 또는 디지털음성송신의 방법으로 음원을 수신하거나 방송사로부터 오디오채널을 수신하여 음악을 틀어주는 것이 저작권법 제76조의2 및 제83조의2에 규정된 실연자 및 음반 제작자의 공연보상청구권의 대상이 되는지와 관련하여 매장 사업자와 실연자 또는 음반제작자 간에 다툼이 있다. 이 논문은 그 중 후자의 문제에 대하여 현행법, 국제조약 및 외국의 입법례 등을 참고하여 필자 나름의 해석기준을 연구·제시함을 그 목적으로 하고 있다. 온라인 매장배경음악서비스 사업자로부터 전송(스트리밍·다운로드 등) 또는 디지털음성송신의 방법으로 판매용 음반에 수록된 음원을 수신하여 공연하거나 방송사로부터 판매용 음반이 사용된 라디오 또는 오디오채널을 수신하여 공연하는 것은 이른바 ``간접 사용``으로서 저작권법 제76조의2의 ``판매용 음반의 사용``에 해당한다. 따라서 위의 매장음악서비스나 방송을 수신하여 백화점 등에서 공연하는 경우 그 공연자는 실연자에게 상당한 보상금을 지급하여야 한다. 저작권법 제29조 제2항의 적용과 관련하여, 동 조항의 ``판매용 음반의 재생``을 직접 사용으로만 한정한다면, 방송 또는 디지털음성송신의 수신을 통하여 음반을 간접 사용하는 경우 동 조항이 전혀 적용되지 않고, 실연자는 저작권법 제76조의2에 따라 보상금을 청구할 수 있다. 만일 제29조 제2항의 ``판매용 음반의 재생``을 간접 사용도 포함하는 것으로 해석하게 된다면, 실연자는 동 조항 단서 및 저작권법시행령 제11조에 따라 보상금을 청구할 수 있다. 실연이 수록된 음반을 (플랜티넷, KT뮤직, 방송사업자 등이) 전송, 디지털음성송신, 방송하는 행위와 이를 수신하여 (백화점 등 사업자가) 공중에게 공개하는 행위는 전자는 공중송신권의 대상이고, 후자는 공연권의 대상으로 양자는 저작권법상 구분되는 이용행위이다. 따라서 각각의 사업자로부터 보상금을 징수하는 행위는 이중징수에 해당하지 않는다. 실연자의 보상청구권과 관련한 독일 저작권법 제78조의 내용을 보면, (ⅰ) 통상의 음반·녹화물이나 디지털 음반·녹화물을 사용하여 방송하는 경우, (ⅱ) 음반·녹화물을 사용하여 공연하는 경우, (ⅲ) 방송 또는 전송에 의하여 수신한 실연을 공연하는 경우에 모두 보상청구권을 갖는다고 규정하고있다. 매체가 녹화물(뮤직비디오 등)도 포함하고 있고, 디지털 매체를 명시하고 있으며, 방송 등을 수신하여 공연하는 것(간접 사용)도 명시하고 있으며, 음반이 상업적일 것을 요건으로 하고 있지 않다는 점에서 우리 법 제75 및 제76조의2보다 실연자의 보상청구권을 넓게 인정하고 있고, 보상청구 가능한 경우를 구체적으로 명시함으로써 해석상 논란의 여지를 남기지 않고있다. 우리나라도 향후 법개정을 통하여 이와 같이 보상청구권의 대상을 구체적이고 폭넓게 규정하는 것이 바람직하다고 판단된다. A merchant who plays the background music for a shop using the sound source which is included in a music disk for sale is ``indirectly using`` the copyrighted sound regardless of whether the merchant receives the music through the network (streaming or download) or through the air (digital broadcasting). If the merchant plays the music from a radio or audio channel where the sound included in a music disk for sale is played, that would also amount to an ``indirect use`` of copyrighted sound. In either of these instances, the merchant is "using a music disk for sale" within meaning of Article 76-2 of the Copyright Act. Since the merchant is publicly playing copyright protected music, appropriate compensation must be made to the performer who recorded the music. If "playing a music disk for sale" under Article 29, Paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act is narrowly interpreted to mean only the direct use of the disk, then the clause would be wholly inapplicable to ``indirect`` use of the disk where the music is received through broadcast or digital music transmission. The performer who recorded the music would then be unable to claim remuneration under Article 76-2 of the Copyright Act. If, on the other hand, "playing a music disk for sale" is interpreted to include indirect use of music as well, the performer who initially recorded the disk would be entitled to remuneration by virtue of a proviso to Article 29, Paragraph 2 and the Copyright Act Enforcement Decree, Paragraph 11. To transmit (as is the case with Plentynet, KT music or other broadcasting service providers) or to digitally broadcast music is an act of public transmission. On the other hand, to receive such music and (for the shop owner or for a department store) to play it to its customers is an act of playing in public. These two are thus separate and distinct acts under the Copyright Act. To collect remuneration from each of these two does not amount to double compensation. Article 78 of the Copyright Act of Germany provides the right to remuneration for those who recorded the music in the following cases: i) when the music is broadcast using conventional music disk or recordings or digital music disk or recordings, ii) when the music is played in public using the music disk or recordings, iii) when the music received through broadcast or transmission is played in public. The provision stipulates the medium broadly to include recordings (such as music video) as well as digital medium of music. It also has an explicit provision regarding playing the music received from broadcast (``indirect use`` of music disk). The German provision does not require that the music disk be "for sale". Considering these points, the German provision allows the right to remuneration in a broader manner than the Korean Copyright Act, Articles 75 and 76-2. The German provision has the additional merit of spelling out the concrete cases where the performers can claim remuneration, thus avoiding the controversies surrounding the interpretation of the direct and indirect use of music disk. It would be desirable that the Korean Copyright Act should be revised in a similar manner so that the right to remuneration is more comprehensively and more concretely defined.

저작권법상 사적복제조항에 관한 연구 -컴퓨터프로그램의 사적복제를 중심으로-

안효질 ( Hyo Jil Ahn ),김현숙 ( Hyun Sook Kim ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2014 고려법학 Vol.0 No.75

우리 저작권법은 제30조에서 일반저작물에 관하여 사적이용을 위한 복제를 허용하는 규정을 두고 있으면서, 동시에 제101조의3 제1항 제4호에서 컴퓨터프로그램에 대해서도 사적이용을 위한 복제를 명시적으로 허용하는 규정을 두고 있다. 현행 저작권법은 1986년 구 컴퓨터프로그램보호법이 제정될 당시부터 존재하던 사적복제규정을 큰 변경 없이 그대로 유지하고 있다. 그러나 많은 컴퓨터프로그램이 개인적으로 또는 가정과 같은 한정된 장소에서 이용된다는 점을 감안하면 사적복제규정은 사실상 컴퓨터프로그램에 대한 저작권의 보호를 박탈하는 것이나 다름없다. 이 논문에서는 현행 저작권법 제30조와 제101조의3 제1항 제4호의 적용 요건을 상세히 분석하고, 이와 유사한 규정을 두고 있는 외국의 입법례를 비교 분석하였다. 사적복제의 허용요건에 대해 매우 상세한 규정을 두고 있는 독일 저작권법은 컴퓨터프로그램을 어문저작물로 보호한다는 명시규정을 도입한1985년 개정법에서 컴퓨터프로그램에 대해서는 사적이용을 위한 복제를 명시적으로 금지하였다. 1991년 제정되고 2009년 개정된 유럽연합의 소프트웨어지침의 해석상으로도 블랙박스 분석, 코드역분석 또는 보존용 복제등 이외에는 어떠한 제한도 허용되지 않으므로 사적복제가 금지되는 것으로 이해되고 있다. 동 지침을 국내법으로 수용한 현행 독일 저작권법도 마찬가지로 해석되고 있다. 더 나아가 영국은 2014년 사적이용을 위한 복제규정을 도입하면서 컴퓨터프로그램은 제외된다고 명시하였다. 이러한 일련의 입법과정에 비추어 보건대, 컴퓨터프로그램에 대해서는 ‘사적복제’라는 저작권의 예외를 인정하지 않는 것이 국제적 추세라고 파악된다. 컴퓨터프로그램은 존재형태가 디지털이라는 점, 전부를 복제하지 않고서는 사적이용을 위한 복제의 목적을 달성할 수 없다는 점 등을 감안할 때, 컴퓨터프로그램의 사적복제는 저작재산권제한의 한계원리인 삼단계 테스트를 충족시킬 수도 없다. 따라서 현행 저작권법 제101조의3 제1항 제4호의 규정은 삭제하는 것이 바람직하다고 판단된다. Reproduction for private use concerning a work is commonly allowed by Article 30 of the Korea Copyright Act, and at the same time reproduction for private use (personal use) concerning a computer program is also clearly allowed by Article 101ter Paragraph (1) No. 4 of the Korea Copyright Act. Current Korean Copyright law maintains, without any significant changes, a regulation of reproduction for private use which has been in existence after enacting the Computer Program Protection Act in 1986. However, the regulation is no better than practically depriving of copyright protection considering circumstances in which many computer programs are used privately or in confined places like homes. This paper has reviewed application conditions in detail for Article 30, Article 101ter Paragraph (1) No. 4 of the Korea Copyright Act and compared an analysis on foreign legislations which are similar to the Korea Copyright Act. The German Copyright Act that enforces very detailed regulations for the requirements of reproduction for private use banned, explicitly, the reproduction for computer programs in its 1985 amendments which introduced an explicit provision that a computer program is protected as a literary work. With the interpretation on software directive of EU enacted in 1991 and amended in 2009, it is understood that reproduction for private use is prohibited, for any limitation is not allowed except for blackbox analysis, decompiling, or back-up copy. The current German Copyright Act accepting the directive as national law has also been interpreted similarly. Furthermore, the United Kingdom says that computer programs are excluded from introducing reproduction regulations for private use in 2014. In light of this series of the legislations, it is understood that there are international trends for computer programs that are not applied to “reproduction for private use” which is made an exception for copyright in general. Considering the fact that a computer program exists as a digital publication and can`t be used by a small part for the personal use without the reproduction of all, reproduction for private use of computer programs cannot satisfy the three step test, which is the minimum requirement for the limitation of an author`s property right. Thus, it is desirable to abolish Article 101ter Paragraph (1) No. 4 of the Korean Copyright Act.

프로그램코드역분석 규정의 비교법적 분석

안효질(Hyo-Jil Ahn) 세창출판사 2007 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.47

Considering that the decompilation is a serious restriction to the computer program copyright and also very important to competitive program developers or program users, it is necessary to regulate it's requisites and permissible range in detail. On that point, the current Computer Program Protection Law seems to have a desirable attitude by legislatively suggesting permissible limits though insufficient. In the United States, the decompilation is treated as a kind of fair use and the requisites are concretized through development of judicial precedents. On the contrary, the EU had announced the Software Directive in 1991, and each member state has accepted it into their national law. The Software Directive permits the decompilation especially in case of development of interoperable computer programs. The current Computer Program Protection Law followed the example of the Software Directive. The decompilation provisions allow program users to approach informations that constitute the basis of other's program within a strictly limited range for maintaining the competition in the software market. If there isn't such a provision, on the one hand the copyright holder of a specific computer program may restrict the competition by interrupting appearances of other similar functioning programs, on the other hand he may monopolize a peripheral market related with auxiliary programs or devices. The decompilation provisions play a role that prohibits such restrictions on competition and promotes standardization. The purpose of the decompilation provisions is not solving legal problems related with the protection of computer programs or their use, but ensuring the competition in the software market. That is, such provisions belong to the realm of Antitrust Law. The current Computer Program Protection Law doesn't take a clear position, whether the decompilation for creating competitive programs is allowed or not, whether the decompilation for keeping interoperability with a hardware is allowed or not, and whether in case of a agreement of prohibiting decompilation the decompilation is a infringement of know-how or not. With reference to the Software Directive of the EU, it is desirable to enact a clear provision about these problems. In addition, it needs to approve the decompilation for the purpose of researching or testing ideas and academic theories included in computer programs besides keeping interoperability. Considering that the current Computer Program Protection Law provides exceptions to the right of integrity in Article 10, it is necessary to permit the decompilation in case of those exceptions in order to guarantee the effectiveness of that provision. The protection of know-how for the copyright holder is needed only if there exists a close trust relationship between both parties in case of such a custom-designed software. In other cases the decompilation should be permitted according to the provisions of the Computer Program Protection Law.

[지정토론문] 한중일 상표법제의 조화 및 통일화

안효질(Ahn, Hyo-Jil) 한국법학원 2017 저스티스 Vol.- No.158-3

판매촉진물품의 제공과 상표의 사용

안효질 ( Hyo Jil Ahn ) 안암법학회 2012 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.37

Nach der koreanischen Rechisprechung ist die Abgabe von Werbegeschenken nicht die Benutrung der Marke im Sinne der L?schungsklage wegen Nichtbenutzung, weil Werbegeschenke nicht der Gegenstand einer separaten Transaktion sind. Aber im Fall einer Markenverletzung sei die unentgeltliche Abgabe einer Ware, insofern die Ware an sich Gegenstand ether separaten Transaktion ist, als die Benutzung der Marke amzusehen. Mach dem Europaischen Gerichtshof muss clue Marke wegen Nichtbenutzung gel?scht werden, wenn sic auf Werbegesehenke verwendet wurde, well eine soiche Verwendung nichi die ,,ernsthafte Benutzung" ist. In diesem Sinne stehen koreanische Gerichte im Binidang mu der Ansicht des Europaischen Gerichtshofs. Allerdings is die Entscheidung des Eumpaischen Gerichtshofs nicht leicht zu Uberzeugen, weil der Europaische Gerichtshof und deutsche Bundesgerichtshof in der Regel auch die Verwendung einer Marke auf die unentgeltlich abgegebene Ware als rechtserhaltende Benutzung im Markenrecht angesehen haben. Die Markenverwendung auf Werbegeschenke zeigi auch die Flerkunft als Markeninhaber, und deshalb ist der Zweck der Marke, deren Hauptfunktion die Herkunfisfunkiion ist, als erfullt anzusehen. Schliefllich sollte die Markenverwendung auf Werbegeschenke als rechiserhaltende Benuizung angesehen werden, und eine solche Handlung dine Erlaubnis des Rechtsinhabers sollte gleichzeitig als rechtsverletzende Benutzung angesehen werden.

공공 소프트웨어 사업의 지식재산권 귀속에 대한 분석 -용역계약일반조건의 내용을 중심으로-

안효질 ( Hyo Jil Ahn ) 안암법학회 2010 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.33

According to the research data of the 2008 KIPA Public Sector Software Business, 87.8% of the ownership of the intellectual property of the public sector software business is attributed to the client(government), 5.6% is undecided, 4.1% is under co-ownership and 2.6% to the contractor company; thus, the majority of the owners is still the client institution. In the field of software business, there is a lack of specific contract methods related to intellectual property as per different forms of business and the main reason for current and potential disputes regarding public sector software business between the client and the contractor is that there is no adequate guideline on the attribution of the intellectual property right. Until currently, in the case of the government consigning a software service, the government as client would own the intellectual property as a usage, therefore, rendering the private corporation with a difficult situation with obstacles when it comes to developing different products based on the software owned by the government and attempts for export or making profit. Thus, the need to improve the contract condition to help the developer-contractor to use the software made for the government, is imminent, if it is used commercially. Moreover, for the person responsible for the actual contracts, a guideline on the attribution of the intellectual property right of software business that helps decide whether the client requires to ensure the ownership of the intellectual property or not, is required. The recently amended Administrative Code of State Contract related matters(「General Conditions of Service Contract」, Accounting Regulations of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance) provides that the contractor-developer of a software is allowed to jointly own the intellectual property with the view of commercializing the product independently. This provision reflects the constant requests from the software business circles. In this paper, references were made to provisions concerned with the attribution of intellectual property rights under the current intellectual property laws such as copyright law and patent law, and judicial precedents related to consignment of software development or works made for hire. Based on these studies, this paper will make a critical analysis on the「General Conditions of Service Contract」of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance.

독일 및 유럽연합에서의 고아저작물 이용에 관한 입법 동향

안효질 ( Hyo Jil Ahn ) 안암법학회 2012 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.39

Literarische Werke, Bilder, Filme, Musik und andere Materialien, die unsere gemeinsamen kulturellen Erben bilden, sind in den kulturellen Einrichtungen wie offentliche Bibliotheken, Museen oder Archiven aufbewahrt. Ein erheblicher Teil von diesen Materialien ist noch urheberrechtlich geschutzt. Jedoch sind Materialien nicht selten so genannte "verwaiste Werke", deren Rechtsinhaber nicht ermittelt sind oder, selbst wenn sie ermittelt sind, nicht ausfindig gemacht worden sind. In einem solchen Fall konnten diese kulturellen Einrichtungen, die ihre Bestande digitalisieren und online zuganglich machen wurden, einem Risiko von Anspruchen wegen Urheberrechtsverletzungen unterliegen, falls in der Zukunft deren Rechtsinhaber auftauchen wurden. Dann wurden die kulturellen Einrichtungen mit der Digitalisierung und Zuganglichmachung ihrer Bestande zogern. Als Ergebnis wird die Entwicklung von digitalen Bibliotheken wie "Europeana" verzogert oder unmoglich sein, was schlieblich gegen das offentliche Interesse an der Bewahrung und Verbreitung des kulturellen Erbes sind. In Deutschland gibt es keine Rechtsvorschriften uber die Nutzung von Werken, deren Rechtsinhaber nicht ermittelt oder ausfindig gemacht worden sind. Der Grund liegt darin, dass in Deutschland das Bewusstsein System des Urheberrechts traditionell gut entwickelt ist. Allerdings ist es jetzt im Prozess der Gesetzesanderung, um auf die Verabschiedung der Richtlinie fur verwaiste Werke in der Ebene der Europaischen Union zu reagieren und den Plan "Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek" auszufuhren. In Korea scheinen solche gesetzgeberische Bemuhungen wie in der Europaischen Union meistens nicht notig zu sein, weil schon gemab § 31 des koreanischen Urheberrechtsgesetzes Bibliotheken und andere ahnliche nichtgewerbliche Einrichtungen urheberrechtlich geschutzte Werke in digitaler Weise vervielfaltigen und offentlich zuganglich machen durfen. Jedoch auch in unserem Land kann § 31 des koreanischen Urheberrechtsgesetzes nicht mehr die Losung sein, wenn andere Einrichtungen als Bibliotheken und die ahnlichen wie private Personen, gewerbliche Unternehmen etc. verwaiste Werke fur kommerzielle oder nicht-kommerzielle Zwecke nutzen wollen. In diesen Fallen ware nur die gesetzliche Lizenz gemab § 50 des koreanischen Urheberrechtsgesetzes hilfreich. Es ist bemerkenswert, dass in bezug auf die sorgfaltige Suche nach Rechtsinhaber als Voraussetzung fur Anerkennung von verwaisten Werken die Richtlinie der Europaischen Union nur die Mindeststandards stellt und unter Berucksichtigung der verschiedenen Praktiken in den Mitgliedsstaaten ein System gegenseitiger Anerkennung von verwaisten Werken in jedem Mitgliedstaat einfuhrt. zum Schutz des Urheberrechts - Werke mussen im Prinzip mit der Genehmigung des Rechtsinhabers genutzt werden - relativ hoch ist und dass verwaiste Werke nicht viel bestehen, weil das kollektive Management- System des Urheberrechts traditionell gut entwickelt ist. Allerdings ist es jetzt im Prozess der Gesetzesanderung, um auf die Verabschiedung der Richtlinie fur verwaiste Werke in der Ebene der Europaischen Union zu reagieren und den Plan "Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek" auszufuhren. In Korea scheinen solche gesetzgeberische Bemuhungen wie in der Europaischen Union meistens nicht notig zu sein, weil schon gemab § 31 des koreanischen Urheberrechtsgesetzes Bibliotheken und andere ahnliche nichtgewerbliche Einrichtungen urheberrechtlich geschutzte Werke in digitaler Weise vervielfaltigen und offentlich zuganglich machen durfen. Jedoch auch in unserem Land kann § 31 des koreanischen Urheberrechtsgesetzes nicht mehr die Losung sein, wenn andere Einrichtungen als Bibliotheken und die ahnlichen wie private Personen, gewerbliche Unternehmen etc. verwaiste Werke fur kommerzielle oder nicht-kommerzielle Zwecke nutzen wollen. In diesen Fallen ware nur die gesetzliche Lizenz gemab § 50 des koreanischen Urheberrechtsgesetzes hilfreich. Es ist bemerkenswert, dass in bezug auf die sorgfaltige Suche nach Rechtsinhaber als Voraussetzung fur Anerkennung von verwaisten Werken die Richtlinie der Europaischen Union nur die Mindeststandards stellt und unter Berucksichtigung der verschiedenen Praktiken in den Mitgliedsstaaten ein System gegenseitiger Anerkennung von verwaisten Werken in jedem Mitgliedstaat einfuhrt.

상표권침해의 구성요건으로서의 거래상 사용

안효질 ( Hyo-jil Ahn ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2016 법학논총 Vol.40 No.4

This study purport to examine the meaning of the “use in the course of trade” in various usages of trademark, by a comprehensive comparative research, which focuses on the case-laws and the literatures of the Germany and the EU, and also seek complementary underpinnings from the case-laws and the literatures of the US and Japan. According to the German case law, it does not constitute a `use in the course of trade` in following occasions. (ⅰ) private activity except from making a living and job, (ii) activity of public office or government, (iii) not-for-profit activity by organization, (iv) pure literature, (v) political, social, religious, consumer-enlightening, sport activity, (vi) showing trademark on media. Whereas, for example, it amounts to `use in the course of trade`, if someone as an author give a publisher some copyrighted work with certain mark attached. If someone files a trademark, name of work or domain name for licensing them to third party, he also makes `use in the course of trade` in itself. It needs to analyze specifically so-called `intra-organization activity`, for example, self-use of the mark, internal use of company or organization. These types of use do not generally constitute an infringement of trademark, in German case law and literatures. Some commentators, however, argued that even genuine internal use of company could be infringing trademark. Article 14. (3) 2 and (4) 2 of German Trademark Act (equivalent of the article 108. (1) 2 and 4 of Korean Trademark Act), provide that it shall be prohibited to stock products, wrappings, packaging or means of identification used someone`s trademark to put them on the market but it is hard to regard as the `use in the course of trade`. It may be just pure inner action of company. Nevertheless, German Trademark Act regards aforementioned actions as infringement of trademark Some Japanese case law based their finding of non-infringing use of trademark (similar to aforementioned `inner action of company`) on the conceptual interpretation of `goods` as defined in the Article 2. (1) 1 of Japan Trademark Act, which provides that the trademark in this Act means is anything which is used in connection with the goods of a person who produces, certifies or assigns the goods as a business. As a matter of principle, products in the meaning of the Trademark act must have some aspects of distribution. If a trademark has been attached to some foods which are consumed on the premises, the trademark does not bear any aspect of distribution, therefore not constituting `use of trademark to `product`. The reasoning of Japanese case law is not entirely convincing, but it took an interesting approach because Japanese case law made that decision from not `as business` but `a character of distribution`. This decision is likely to finding of `no use in the course of trade`. In Korea, the Trademarks Act does not clearly provide whether the trademark infringement requires the conduct to be engaged in as a business activity or it requires a “commercial use” element like other major jurisdictions. The requirement should be further clarified in the future amendments. Meanwhile, it is not clear that the “as a business activity” requirement advocated by some commentators has the same meaning with the “in the course of trade” requirement used in foreign legislations and case- laws. This study focuses on the case-by-case examination of the meaning of the “use in the course of trade” by reviewing its usages in the case-laws of the Germany and the EU. According to the current Trademarks Act, infringement of trademark rights means that `the trademark protected under the Trademarks Act` is infringed. Therefore, it is difficult to encompass the use of the mark irrelevant to the conceptual element for legislatively defining trademark in determining trademark infringement. As a result, each factor (`product`, `identification`, etc.) defined in the definition of the trademark concept in Article 2 (1) (1) of the Trademark Act should be the guiding principle for judging whether trademark infringement has been violated. However, I think the legislative clarification is necessary to improve current weak legal ground for such interpretation, since the legal grounds are weak. With or without above-mentioned amendments, the problem of abstractness associated with the concepts such as “as a business”, “commercially” and “in the course of trade” will remain. This study will provide helpful guidelines to distinguish between trademark infringement and non-infringement in dealing with still uncertain legal concepts.

상호의 라이센스

안효질 한국상사법학회 2000 商事法硏究 Vol.19 No.1