지적재산권분쟁에 있어서 중재의 대상적격 = The Arbitrability of the Subject-matter of Disputes over Intellectual Property Rights

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Disputes over various intellectual property rights can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication. If such disputes are referred to arbitration, it gives the parties an opportunity to select for themselves a tribunal of arbitrators experienced in such matters, and the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings helps to provide a safeguard for trade secrets.
Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the parties may agree to arbitrate disputes relating to the rights that they freely dispose of. Besides, they may have the freedom to choose arbitration as the form of a dispute resolution.
It is necessary to examine the arbitrability of the subject-matter of disputes over intellectual property rights on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. Whether or not a patent, utility model, design or trademark should be granted is plainly a matter for the public authorities of the state concerned, these being monopoly rights that only the state can grant. Any dispute as to their grant or validity is outside the domain of arbitration. However, the owner of a patent or trademark frequently issues licences to one or more corporations or individuals in order to exploit the patent or trademark; and any disputes between the licensor and licensee may be referred to arbitration. Unlike a patent etc., copyrights are intellectual property rights which exist independently of any national registration, and may be freely disposed of by parties. There is generally no doubt that disputes relating to such private rights may be referred to arbitration.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Disputes over various intellectual property rights can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication. If such disputes are referred to arbitration, it gives the parties an opportunity to select for themselves a tribunal of arbitrators experienced in such matters, and the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings helps to provide a safeguard for trade secrets.
Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the parties may agree to arbitrate disputes relating to the rights that they freely dispose of. Besides, they may have the freedom to choose arbitration as the form of a dispute resolution.
It is necessary to examine the arbitrability of the subject-matter of disputes over intellectual property rights on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. Whether or not a patent, utility model, design or trademark should be granted is plainly a matter for the public authorities of the state concerned, these being monopoly rights that only the state can grant. Any dispute as to their grant or validity is outside the domain of arbitration. However, the owner of a patent or trademark frequently issues licences to one or more corporations or individuals in order to exploit the patent or trademark; and any disputes between the licensor and licensee may be referred to arbitration. Unlike a patent etc., copyrights are intellectual property rights which exist independently of any national registration, and may be freely disposed of by parties. There is generally no doubt that disputes relating to such private rights may be referred to arbitration.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 황종환, "특허법" 한빛지적소유권센터 2005

2 목영준, "상사중재법론" 박영사 2001

3 석광현, "국제상사중재법연구 제1권" 박영사 2007

4 이태희, "국제계약법 ‑이론과 실무‑" 법문사 2001

5 高田薰, "行政事件の仲裁適格性(1)" 日本商事 仲裁協會 46 (46): 1999

6 澤井啓, "知的財産紛爭の仲裁·ADR(含コメント)" 國際商取引學會 8 : 2006

7 黑川惠, "知的財産紛爭とADR" 51 (51): 2004

8 瀧井朋子, "知的財産權と仲裁制度" 帝國地方行政 學會 57 (57): 2004

9 田邊誠, "民事紛爭の仲裁適格について-ドイツにおける議論を參考にして-" 法律文化社 (42) : 1996

10 淺井孝夫, "仲裁節次利用の得失" 商事法務硏究會 (755) : 2003

11 猪股孝史, "仲裁合意の本旨そして仲裁可能性" 日本商事仲裁協會 53 (53): 2006

12 中村達也, "仲裁可能性と仲裁節次の準據法" 日本商事仲裁協會 49 (49): 2002

13 Schwab, Karl Heinz, "Wandlungen der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, in Festschrift f r Wolfram Henckel zum 70. Geburtstag ü am 21. April 1995" Walter de Gruyter 1995

14 Schwab, Karl Heinz, "Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit" C. H. Beck 2005

15 Barber, Horst, "Objektive Schiedsfähigkeit und ordre public in der internationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit" PETER LANG 1994

16 Stein, Friedrich, "Kommentar zur Zivilprozeßordnung, Bd. 9" J. C. B. Mohr 2002

17 Schütze, Rolf A., "Dieter Tscherning/Walter Wais, Handbuch des Schiedsverfahrens" Walter de Gruyter 1990

18 Bork, Reinhard, "Der Begriff der objektive Schiedsfähigkeit(§1025 Abs. 1 ZPO)" 100 : 249-, 1987

19 Schlosser, Peter, "Das Recht der internationalen privaten Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit" 1989