상표와 상호 사이의 법률적 관계에 관한 연구

윤기승(Yoon Gi Seung) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2016 法學論文集 Vol.40 No.1

Although small merchants are using their trade name in trade, they don’t know much about trademarks and trade names and are little interested in them. A trademark broker who knows these situations and related laws submits to the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office(KIPO) the application form for trademark registration and registers trademark right. And then the trademark broker submits a suit for trademark infringement against the small merchants and requests settlement money from them. In other words, they are damaged from the trademark broker. KIPO realized the importance of the problem and revised the Trademark Act in 2013. Namely, a person, who have continually used the trademark in Korea before any other person files an application for the registration of such trademark without any purpose of unfair competition and uses a means identifying the personality such as his/her name or trade name as a trademark according to customary business practice, shall have the right to continuously use the relevant trademark on goods that use the trademark(Trademark Act article 57-3(2)). However, when the trademark broker submits a suit for trademark infringement against the small merchants, they don’t take legally proper measures and are damaged from the trademark broker. The reason is that they don’t understand the Trademark Act, the Commercial Act or the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act in connection with trademark and trade name. This paper wants to clear up legal relationship between trade name which small merchants is using and trademark broker’s trademark right. Accordingly, this paper studies difference between trademark and trade name, applied laws in case of both sides’ conflict and the juridical relation in specific cases. Therefore this paper wants to help small merchants not to be damaged on a false charge.

공유자 중 1인의 실시와 그 이익분배의 책임

윤기승(Gi-Seung Yoon) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2010 法學硏究 Vol.21 No.1

There are two types in working the patented invention that joint owners own patent right. One is working by each of joint owners and the other is working by licensee. These workings by each of joint owners or licensee are provided in Korea Patent Act Art. 99(3) & (4). Korea Patent Act Art 99(3) provides that where a patent right is jointly owned and unless otherwise agreed in a contract of the owners, an owner may individually work the patented invention without the consent of the other joint owners. According to this Act , one of the joint owners does not need the consent of the other joint owners in working the patented invention. However there is an conflict whether the joint owner must account to the other joint owners where the joint owner obtained profit through working the patented invention. That is the reason why there is no provision with regard to accounting to the other joint owners in Korea Patent Act. Also Korea Patent Act 99(4) provides that where a patent right is jointly owned, an owner may not grant an exclusive license or a non??exclusive license of the patent right without the consent of the other joint owners. Also in this case, Korea Patent Act provides that one of joint owners needs the consent of the other joint owners in order to grant license for the third part, but Korea Patent Act has no provision with regard to accounting to the other joint owners. Accordingly, this paper wants to interpret whether or not the joint owner who obtained profit through working the patented invention must account to the other joint owners. Addition to this interpretation, this paper also wants to judge whether or not it is desirable that the joint owner must account to the other joint owners. Based on the above, this paper suggests amendment of the Patent Act.

특허권의 침해금지명령(Injunction)과 관련된 한-EU FTA의 내용 및 그 이행방안

윤기승 ( Gi Seung Yoon ) 한남대학교 과학기술법연구소 2010 과학기술법연구 Vol.16 No.1

Korea and EU temporally signed Free Trade Agreement(FTA) at Brussels on the 15th of October, 2009. This Korea-EU FTA includes national treatment and market access for goods, trade remedies, technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, customs and trade facilitation, trade in services, establishment and electronic commerce, etc. In the field of intellectual property of Korea-EU FTA there are regulations embodying copyright, the rights related to patents, trademarks, service marks, designs, etc. Especially among such regulations there are those related to injunction, which are Injunction(10.48) and Alternative Measure(10.49). These regulations go hand in glove with Patent Troll that makes much money only through infringement lawsuits or transfers and licenses of patent rights without manufacturing goods. That is, Patent Troll is only patent owner but has no intention to manufacture goods. In this case, we come to grips with big problem whether Patent Troll should be protected by the Patent Act or infringer should be protected by the public interest. Of course, according to Korea-EU FTA, it is Korea`s decision whether Korea would provide that at the request of the person liable to be subject to the measures of injunction, the competent judicial authorities may order pecuniary compensation to be paid to the injured party instead of applying the measures of injunction. However, in the case of ordering pecuniary compensation as alternative measures, Korea-EU FTA requests that infringer acted unintentionally and without negligence, execution of the measures in question would cause him or her disproportionate harm and pecuniary compensation to the injured party appears reasonably satisfactory. So this study aims for examining carefully contents of Korea-EU FTA regarding regulation of injunction and alternative measures, deciding whether we would accept such regulations in Korea-EU FTA and suggesting proposal to amend the Patent Act in case of accepting such regulations.

특허법상 징벌적 손해배상제도 도입에 관한 연구 -개인발명가 및 중소기업 보호를 중심으로-

윤기승 ( Gi Seung Yoon ) 한남대학교 과학기술법연구원 2014 과학기술법연구 Vol.20 No.1

When a large company infringed the patent right of Individual Inventors & small and medium enterprises, it is difficult that they win their suit for various reasons, and if so, the problems that they receive compensation for a little damages. Due to these problems, it is necessary to revise the provision related to damages and to introduce punitive damages system in the Korean Patent Act. To introduce this system, however, there are many problems to solve; a sharp distinction between civil responsibility and crime responsibility, double punishment with offence of infringement(the Korean Patent Act Article 225), and patent troll and its vexatiousness. Accordingly this paper deals with the problems of damages system in the existing Korean Patent Act, examples of legislation of other countries on punitive damages and many problems to solve if introducing this system. In conclusion, this paper suggests the legislation to introduce punitive damages in the Korean Patent Act; (1) a method to introduce punitive damages completely, (2) a method to introduce punitive damages limited to reasonable royalty or (3) a method to introduce punitive damages limited to reasonable royalty and only individual Inventors & small and medium enterprises. However, this paper emphasizes the last method among above suggestions in order to protect individual Inventors & small and medium enterprises prior to large company and in order to introduce punitive damages system step by step. So this paper hopes to help protect the patent right of individual Inventors & small and medium enterprises.

특허청구범위의 ‘실질적 변경’ 관련 해석론 및 입법론

정차호(Jung Cha Ho),윤기승(Yoon Gi Seung) 한국정보법학회 2009 정보법학 Vol.13 No.2

특허청구범위의 실질적 변경과 관련된 해석론으로, 본 고는 (1) 실질적 변경 대비의 대상은 특허청구범위만이며, 명세서 등은 참고될 뿐이고, (2) 같은 번호를 가진 청구항만을 대비하는 것이 아니라 다른 번호를 가진 청구항도 대비되어야 하고, (3) 실질 적 변경과는 별도로 신규사항추가 여부가 판단되어야 하며, (4) 내적 한정의 범위 감축 중 선택발명의 경우 실질적 변경이 있을 수 있고, (5) 내적 한정과 외적 부가는 달리 취급되는 것이 아니라 새로운 목적 또는 효과라는 동일한 기준으로 판단되어야 하며, (6) 실질적 변경 판단의 방법과 진보성 판단의 방법이 매우 유사하다는 점을 설명하였다. 특허청구범위의 실질적 변경과 관련된 입법론으로, 본 고는 ① 실질적 변경 여부의 판단이 너무 어려워서 소모적인 논쟁 및 심결에의 불신 및 불복을 유도한다는 점, ②실질적 변경 요건이 제3자를 보호하기 위한 것이라는 주장이 허구이며, 실질적 변경요건을 삭제하여도 제3자가 피해를 보는 일은 없다는 점, ③ 실질적 변경 요건을 일본 외 다른 국가에서는 채용하고 있지 않으므로 국제적 조화를 이룰 필요가 있다는 점에근거하여 정정에서도 실질적 변경 요건을 삭제하여야 한다고 주장한다. 나아가, 그러한 기회에 정정제도를 총체적으로 개선할 필요가 있으며, 이를 위해 정정심판과 무효심판의 관계 재정립 등 정정제도 전체에 대한 연구가 필요하다고 보았다. As analytic theories regarding substantive change of a patent claim, this paper explains: (1) an object of comparison whether there is substantive change is only claims and other parts of specification is only referred, (2) not only the claim with the same number but also other claims shall be compared, (3) the issue whether new matter has been added shall be separately decided from the substantive change issue, (4) a selection invention which is a type of inward limitations may cause substantive change, (5) an inward limitation and an outward addition shall not be differently treated but be decided under the same criteria, which is new objective and effect, and (6) the methodology for substantive change decision and that for inventive step decision are very similar to each other. As legislative proposals regarding substantive change of a patent claim, this paper proclaims the substantive change requirement had better be deleted during a correction procedure under following reasons: (1) a decision on substantive change is such difficult to induce continuous debates and disbelief and appeals against a trial decision, (2) the argument that the substantive change requirement is necessary to protect the third party is baseless and deletion of the requirement does not cause any harm to the third party, and (3) the substantive change requirement is not applied by other countries except only Japan and the requirement had better be deleted for harmonization of international patent system.

온라인 쇼핑몰에서의 진정상품병행수입에 대한 연구

윤기승 충북대학교 국가미래기술경영연구소 2019 기술경영 Vol.4 No.2

요즘 수입업자들이 직접 진정상품을 병행수입하여 온라인 쇼핑몰을 통하여 직접 판매 하거나 또는 소비자들이 온라인 쇼핑몰을 통해 해외 직구에 의하여 제품을 구매하는 행위가 성행하고 있다. 이렇듯 진정상품병행수입이 성행하는 이유는 다국적 기업의 가 격차별화정책이나 국가마다 다른 환율정책 등에 의하여 발생된다. 이와 관련하여 파리 협약의 속지주의 원칙에 따라 진정상품병행수입을 금지하자는 견해도 있지만, 대부분 의 국가들은 국제소진론이나 상표기능론에 입각하여 일정한 경우에 진정상품병행수입 을 허용하고 있다. 하지만 이렇게 수입이 허용된 진정상품의 광고를 어디까지 허용하는지가 문제이다. 이와 관련하여 판례는 병행수입업자가 국내에서 병행수입품을 소극적으로 판매하는 행 위는 상표권 침해도 아니고 또 부정경쟁방지법상 부정경쟁행위도 아니지만, 병행수입 업자가 국내에서 적극적으로 상표권자의 상표를 사용하여 광고 및 선전을 하는 행위는 일정한 경우 부정경쟁방지법상 부정경쟁행위에 해당된다고 본다. 이러한 판례의 태도 가 올바른 판단인지, 또 이러한 판례가 온라인 쇼핑몰에서도 그대로 적용될 수가 있는 지 등이 새로운 문제로 대두되고 있다.