商標와 地理的 標示의 衝突에 관한 硏究

박준우(朴濬佑) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2004 통상법률 Vol.- No.58

In the WTO negotiations on the protection of geographical indications, there are basically two issues. The first issue is the legal effects of the geographical indications registered in multilateral system. The United States wants a registration system without binding legal effects, while the European Communities wants a system with binding ones. The second issue is the extent of the goods or services to which additional protection is granted beyond wines and spirits. Currently, the United States tries to minimize the extension of those goods or services, while the European Communities argues that there should be no limitation in granting additional protection. In this article, I argued that Korea should approach the issues on the protection of geographical indications from the perspective of the protection of Korean trademarks, and of the development of Korean geographical indications. For the development of the Korean geographical indications, Korea currently needs the quality control of the agricultural products. Apart from the debate on the geographical indications in the WTO, Korea should prepare for a concrete registration and protection system for geographical indications, which can give incentives necessary to secure the minimum and consistent quality of agricultural products. On the other hand, Korea should support the U.S. proposal to protect Korean trademarks from the already genericized geographical indications and to protect Korean trademarks, which conflicts with geographical indications.

商標와 地理的 標示의 衝突에 관한 硏究: WTO에서의 論議를 中心으로

박준우 법무부 2004 통상법률 Vol.- No.58

In the WTO negotiations on the protection of geographical indications, there are basically two issues. The first issue is the legal effects of the geographical indications registered in multilateral system. The United States wants a registration system without binding legal effects, while the European Communities wants a system with binding ones. The second issue is the extent of the goods or services to which additional protection is granted beyond wines and spirits. Currently, the United States tries to minimize the extension of those goods or services, while the European Communities argues that there should be no limitation in granting additional protection. In this article, I argued that Korea should approach the issues on the protection of geographical indications from the perspective of the protection of Korean trademarks, and of the development of Korean geographical indications. For the development of the Korean geographical indications, Korea currently needs the quality control of the agricultural products. Apart from the debate on the geographical indications in the WTO, Korea should prepare for a concrete registration and protection system for geographical indications, which can give incentives necessary to secure the minimum and consistent quality of agricultural products. On the other hand, Korea should support the U.S. proposal to protect Korean trademarks from the already genericized geographical indications and to protect Korean trademarks, which conflicts with geographical indications.

지리적표시의 다자등록시스템에 관한 연구 : 상표법 개정안의 보완사항의 제안

朴濬佑 한국기업법학회 2004 企業法硏究 Vol.16 No.-

The topic of this article is 'multilateral registration system of geographical indications (hereinafter multilateral registration system).' There have been debates on the subject between European countries and the rest of the world. The core issue is the legal effects of the registration on the participating parties. European countries want a binding effect, while the rest of the world want a non-binding one. After introducing the debates in the WTO, I argued that whichever result would come out, Korea should make a strong registration system for geographical indications in order to promote agricultural and fishery industries in Korea. Finally, I made some suggestions for the draft amendment of Korea Trademark Act for the registration of geographical indications.

지리적표시의 추가적 보호에 관한 연구 -WTO에서의 논의를 중심으로-

박준우 ( Jun-u Park ) 한국경제법학회 2006 경제법연구 Vol.5 No.1

지리적표시의 보호에 관한 WTO에서의 협상에 있어서 미국 측과 EC 측은 다음과 같이 입장을 달리한다. 첫째, 미국 측은 비구속적 효력을 가진 등록시스템을, EC 측은 구속적 효력을 가진 등록시스템을 주장하고, 둘째, 미국 측은 추가적 보호의 지정상품의 확대에 소극적이나, EC 측은 추가적 보호의 지정상품을 전 품목으로 확대할 뿐만 아니라, 일정한 농산품에 대하여는 TRIPs 협정 제24조의 예외규정도 적용하지 않을 것도 주장하였다. 이는 지리적표시의 보호에 관련된 WTO 회원국의 경제적 이익의 차이로부터 비롯된 것이다. 실제로 EC 측과 미국 측의 입장의 대립은 ‘EC 측의 지리적표시 대 미국 측의 지리적표시’라기 보다는, ‘EC 측의 지리적표시 대 미국 측의 상표’의 문제이다. 그러므로 WTO에서의 지리적표시 관련 논의는 EC 측에서 보면 지리적표시의 보호의 문제이지만, 미국 측에서 보면 상표권의 보호의 측면이 더 크다. 법적 측면에서 보았을 때, 이 문제는 상표권과 지리적표시의 보호가 충돌하는 경우 어느 것을 우선하여야 하는 문제이다. 전통적으로 미국 또는 캐나다 등의 국가에서는 ‘먼저 발생한 권리가 우선한다(exclusivity of the prior right).’는 원칙에의 하지만, 유럽국가에서는 ‘지리적 표시의 보호가 상표권에 우선한다(즉, 지리적표시의 보호에 관한 법률과 상표법은 특별법과 일반 법의 관계에 있다).’는 원칙에 입각하여 이 문제를 해결하여 왔다. 우리나라는 현재 WTO에서 논의되고 있는 지리적표시의 보호에 대하여 ‘국내 지리적표시 개발’과 ‘국내 상표권 보호’ 및 ‘관용명칭이 된 지리적표시의 보호방지’라는 관점에서 접근하여야 한다. 우선 국내적으로는 우리나라의 1차 산업 상품의 품질향상이 필요한 시기이다. WTO에서의 지리적표시의 보호에 관한 논의와는 별도로 지리적표시의 등록 및 보호제도를 구체적이고 체계적으로 마련하여 우리 1차 산업 상품의 품질의 최소수준의 확보와 동일한 등급의 상품의 품질의 균일성 확보를 위한 인센티브로 이용하여야 한다. 반면에 WTO에서의 논의와 관련하여, EC 측의 안이 관철될 경우, 국내 업자들이 ‘샴페인’ 등의 관용명칭이 된 지리적표시를 상품종류를 표시할 목적으로 사용하지 못하게 되어 부착된 표시를 전부 교체하여야 하는 등의 비용을 부담할 수 있으므로 이를 방지하기 위하여 지리적표시의 추가적 보호의 확대문제와 관련하여서는 미국 측과 입장을 같이 하는 것이 유리할 것이다. 그러나 이는 어디까지나 지리적표시의 보호 및 상표권의 분야에서 그렇다는 것이며, WTO에서의 협상은 포괄협상방식(package deal)을 취하므로 결국 다른 분야와 함께 국익에 있어서의 손익계산을 하여 최종적으로 우리의 입장을 정하여야 한다. In the WTO negotiations on the protection of geographical indications, there are basically two issues. The first issue is the legal effects of the geographical indications registered in multilateral system. The United States wants a registration system without binding legal effects, while the European Communities wants a system with binding ones. The second issue is the extent of the goods or services to which additional protection is granted beyond wines and spirits. Currently, the United States tries to minimize the extension of those goods or services, while the European Communities argues that there should be no limitation in granting additional protection. In this article, I argued that Korea should approach the issues on the protection of geographical indications from the perspective of the protection of Korean trademarks, and of the development of Korean geographical indications. For the development of the Korean geographical indications, Korea currently needs the quality control of the agricultural products. Apart from the debate on the geographical indications in the WTO, Korea should prepare for a concrete registration and protection system for geographical indications, which can give incentives necessary to secure the minimum and consistent quality of agricultural products.

지리적표시 보호법제에 관한 연구

박현경(Hyun-Kyung Park) 한국기업법학회 2008 企業法硏究 Vol.22 No.1

This article studies the legal system of Geographical Indications(GIs) of international and national systems. GI is still new and strange area as an intellectual property in most of the world. There are only 3 articles in TRIPS to protect GI as a minimum standard. First, general protection to any commercial products, second, additional protection especially on wine and spirits, and the last, exceptions on GIs protection and future development of the system. TRIPs hands over details for protection of GIs to every member nation's national legislations. GIs are defined as the indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member…where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. They were designed to protect consumers from being misled, producers and traders from being misappropriated. In addition, they protect agriculture and rural society and culture. Comparing GIs with trademarks, in spite of many similarities in common, GIs need certain place-products connection and political and social policies more than those similarities. However, most of countries(including korea) have GIs protected in the trademark system by regionally based collective marks. Thus there seems to be conflicts when a GI seeks to be protected where there is a prior registered trademark. This article studies the relationship between GIs in the form of regionally based collective marks and trademarks, and then explains the development of international GIs system. Finally, it shows the Korean legal system to protect GIs through regionally based collective marks in the Trademark Act and the Agricultural products Quality Control Act.

TRIPs협정과 우리 상표법의 지리적 표시 보호제도

송석언(Seok Eon Song) 중앙법학회 2008 中央法學 Vol.10 No.3