Korean Case Law on Trademark Dilution (3)

Continuing from Korean Case Law on Trademark Dilution (2),

Point 1. The meaning of ‘widely known in Korea’ is different depending on under which provision the phrase is used, Art. 2(1)(a) (well known mark for goods), Art. 2(1)(b) (well known service mark), or Art. 2(1)(c) (trademark dilution).

Point 2. The level of standard for being ‘widely known in Korea’ for purposes of trademark dilution is quite high because a mark should be beyond being well known to reach the level of being eminent.  Establishing a prima facie case for trademark dilution in Korea doesn’t seem easy.  We still don’t know how famous is eminent.  At least we know that Viagra was eminent in Korea in 2001.

Point 3. dram_man commented:

Hope you will continue, its really half the story. Again, in my experience we are talking very conservative rulings. For example when the court means “eminent” as you translate, in my experience they might as well write, if you can excuse the hyperbole, “slightly more famous than Coca-cola”. I will say however, the Court is slightly less strict than the Korean Intellectual Property Office in determining what is “well known”. Not enough to risk your business on in my opinion, but worth noting.

• Viagra was found ‘eminent.’  I don’t know if Viagra is more famous than Coca-cola.

• I believe in dram_man, but I need more clarification on what dram_man meant by the Korean Intellectual Property Office’s (KIPO’s) determination of “well known.”  The KIPO does not get to determine on what is well known under the Unfair Competition Act.  It does have quasi-legislative power on the Unfair Competition Act but it does not have the power to interpret the Act.  The only literature on the Unfair Competition Act published by KIPO that I could obtain was a 400 page manual on the Act.

As far as “damage”, I personally would add that the mere “possibility” of confusion is not enough. If you wanted to pursue dilution in court by using this provision, particularly solely by this provision, I would not be hopeful with evidence of bad-faith on the part of the dilutor, or evidence that consumers have indeed been confused by the usage.

• Court reports don’t explain in detail how it has reached a certain factual finding.  The legal standard for proving “damaging the distinctiveness” isn’t clear.

Korean Case Law on Trademark Dilution (2)

continuing from Korean Case Law on Trademark Dilution.

(1) At what time should we look at?

The factual finding by the lower court on whether the mark ‘Viagra’ was a widely known mark in Korea was affirmative.  Note that the court said the time we should look at for determining on this issue was the date when the arguments for factual finding was concluded, which was November 13, 2001 in this case.  (The case was filed on November 18, 1999.)

“부정경쟁방지및영업비밀보호에관한법률 … 제2조제1호(가)목 소정의 … 표지가 국내에 널리 인식되었는지 여부는 사실심변론종결시를 기준으로 판단하여야 하며 … 이는 제2조제1호(다)목의 경우에도 마찬가지라고 할 것…”

“Whether a mark is widely known in Korea under Art. 2(1)(a) should be determined with reference to the date on which arguments for factual finding were concluded.  The same applies to ‘widely known’ under Art. 2(1)(c) (dilution provision) …”

(2) Whether ‘Viagra’ was ‘widely known’ in Korea for dilution purpose

On the issue of whether ‘Vigra’ was ‘widely known’ in Korea, the Supreme Court seems to affirm the lower court’s finding.  The Supreme Court does not discuss lower court’s finding but only refers to ‘Viagra’ and other marks as ‘the plaintiffs’ eminent marks.’   This is a little bit odd to me because the Supreme Court interpreted the then-recently-amended provision on dilution as:

“위 규정에서 사용하고 있는 ‘국내에 널리 인식된’ 이라는 용어는 ‘주지의 정도를 넘어 저명 정도에 이른 것’을 … 의미하는 것으로 해석함이 상당[하다].

“The phrase “widely known in the Republic of Korea” can be interpreted to mean ‘beyond the level of being well-known to reach the level of being eminent.’” (case at hand) (translation by Kai)

, and simply quotes lower court’s finding on the issue.

This case is interesting in that the dilution provision was amended to the current provision while the Viagra case was still being tried at the lower court.  I can’t find any record on whether the court changed the ‘widely known’ standard on appellate review.  The lower court did not elaborate on the meaning of ‘widely known’ after all.

The lower court (Seoul High Court) found:

“살피건대, 원고 화이자 프로덕츠 인크의 위 각 등록상표 및 원고들의 상호가 상품표지 및 영업표지로서 국내에 널리 알려져 있는 사실…은 앞에서 인정한 바와 같다.” (99나66719)
“The fact that the registered trademarks of the plaintiff Pfizer Products, Inc. and its trade names are widely known in Korea as marks for good and service marks … are acknowledged as earlier.” (99 Na 66719) (translation by Kai)

(3) Whether the mark ‘Viagra’ was diluted.

Applying its interpretation of the dilution provision in the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, the court affirms the lower court’s decision:

“피고들이 이 사건 상표들을 상품표지로 사용하였다고 볼 수 없음은 앞서 본 바와 같으므로, 원심이 피고들이 이 사건 상표들을 자신들의 상품표지로 사용함으로써 이 사건 상표들의 식별력을 손상하였다고 판단한 것은 잘못이나, …”

“Since, as seen earlier, the defendant cannot be said to have used the trademark s (Viagra and others) as marks for goods, the lower court’s decision finding that the defendants damaged the distinctiveness of the marks by using them as marks for goods …” (translation by Kai)

“기록에 의하면, 피고들이 이 사건 도메인 이름으로 개설한 웹사이트에서  생칡즙, 재첩국,건강보조식품 등을 인터넷상으로 판매하는 행위를 한 것은, 원고들의 저명상표와 유사한 표지를 영업표지로 사용한 것에 해당하고, …”

“according to records, the act of selling arrowroot juice, corbicula soup and other health supplementary ingredients on the internet site registered as http://www.viagra.co.kr/ corresponds to using the plaintiffs’ eminent marks and similar marks as service marks …”

“이처럼 피고들이 위 상표들을 영업표지로 사용함에 의하여 위 상표들의 상품표지로서의 출처표시기능을 손상하였다고 할 것이며, 원심 또한 피고들이 이 사건 도메인 이름을 사용하여 생칡즙 판매 등의 영업을 한 것을 식별력 손상행위 중의 하나로 들고 있으므로, …”

“the defendants are found to have damaged the function of source identification of the aforesaid marks for goods by using them as service marks.  The plaintiffs are also alleging that the defendants’ sales activity for arrowroot juice and other products is one of the acts of damaging the distinctiveness …”

“피고들의 행위가 위 법률 제2조 제1호 (다)목의 부정경쟁행위에 해당한다고 본 원심은 그 결론에 있어 정당하[다].”

The lower court’s finding that the defendants’ acts fall under the unfair competition act as provided by Art. 2(1)(c) of the aforesaid Act is justified.

Korean Case Law on Trademark Dilution

Dram_man commented on Trademark Dilution in Korea:

You might want to add that Korean courts tend to be very conservative in applying this part of the Unfair Competition Act. Normally a plaintiff needs to show actual confusion in the marketplace. And damages? Fuggitaboutit!

Dram_man said the burden of proof for trademark dilution in Korean courts is very high. I agree.

The Viagra case (Supreme Court, 2004. 5. 14, 2002 Da 13782, 대법원2004.5.14. 선고 2002다13782 판결) interprets the meaning of two phrases in the trademark dilution provision of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Act. The first phrase is “widely known in the Republic of Korea” (”국내에 널리 인식된”), the second is “damaging the distinctiveness.” (”식별력의 손상”)

1. Widely Known in the Republic of Korea (국내에 널리 인식된)

There are a number of preceding cases defining the phrase “widely known in the Republic of Korea” in the context of well-known mark protection under Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection. The dilution provision of the Unfair Competition Act (Article 2(1)(c)) uses the same phrase as in Article 2(1)(a) and (b), but the phrase ‘widely known in the Republic of Korea’ is interpreted differently depending on whether it is read in the context of Art. 2(1)(a), (b) or (c). therefore the court repeats the previous cases in defining the meaning of “widely known in the Republic of Korea.”

Under Art. 2(1)(a) and (b) (well-known mark for goods and service):

“… ‘국내에 널리 인식된’의 의미는 국내 전역에 걸쳐 모든 사람에게 주지되어 있음을 요하지 않고, 국내의 일정한 지역 범위 안에서 거래자 또는 수요자들 사이에 알려진 정도로써 족하며, 널리 알려진 표지인지 여부는 그 사용기간, 방법, 태양, 사용량, 거래범위 등과 거래의 실정 및 사회통념에 비추어 객관적으로 널리 알려졌느냐의 여부가 판단의 기준이 된다.” (2005나35938)

“…’being widely known in Korea’ does not require that a mark is well known to everybody in all region of Korea, but it is sufficient that the mark is known among traders or customers in a specific regional area in Korea. Whether the mark is well known is determined based on various factors such as the length of term, method, mode, amount and scope of trade in the mark and in light on the actual manner of trade and socially accepted idea.” (2005 Na 35938) (translation by Kai)

Under Art. 2(1)(c) (dilution):

“위 규정에서 사용하고 있는 ‘국내에 널리 인식된’ 이라는 용어는 ‘주지의 정도를 넘어 저명 정도에 이른 것’을 … 의미하는 것으로 해석함이 상당[하다].

“The phrase “widely known in the Republic of Korea” can be interpreted to mean ‘beyond the level of being well-known to reach the level of being eminent.’” (case at hand) (translation by Kai)

2. Damaging the Distinctiveness (식별력의 손상)

This phrase only appears in dilution provision (Article 2(1)(c)), so the case can be considered the leading case in trademark dilution.

The court said:

“‘식별력의 손상’은 ‘특정한 표지가 상품표지나 영업표지로서의 출처표시 기능이 손상되는 것’을 의미하는 것으로 해석함이 상당하며, 이러한 식별력의 손상은 저명한 상품표지가 다른 사람에 의하여 영업표지로 사용되는 경우에도 생긴다.”

“‘”damaging the distinctiveness” can be interpreted to mean “a certain mark’s (for goods or service) function of source indication is being damaged,” and this type of “damaging the distinctiveness” may occur when an ‘eminent’ mark for goods is used as service mark by another person.” (translation by Kai)

Will continue on this later …

Trademark Dilution in Korea

Dilution in the U.S. is regulated by the Trademark Act (as revised by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006).

In Korea, the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the “Unfair Competition Act”) does the role. The Act was amended in 2001 to add a provision on dilution. Article 2(1)(a)-(c) provide:

1. The term “unfair competitive act” means the act falling under any of the following items:

(a) An act of creating confusion between one’s own goods and any other person’s goods, by using any one identical with or similar to a name, trade name, trademark, container or package of goods of the other person, or a mark indicating the other person’s goods, which is known to the public in Korea, or by selling, distributing, importing or exporting goods using any of the above enumerated manners;

(b) An act of creating confusion with any other person’s business facilities or activities by using any one identical with or similar to the other person’s name, trade name, or emblem, or other mark indicating the other person’s business which is known to the public in Korea;

(c) Other than the acts of creating confusion under items (a) and (b), an act of damaging the distinctiveness or reputation attached to another person’s sign, identity of mark or the fame of any other person, by using any one identical with or similar to a name, trade name, trademark, or container and package of goods of the other person, or other mark indicating the other person’s goods or business, which is widely known in the Republic of Korea, known to the public in Korea, without any justifiable grounds as prescribed by the Presidential Decree such as non-commercial uses, or by selling, distributing, importing or exporting goods using any of the above enumerated manners;

Article 2(1)(c) does not specifically state the word “dilution,” but it contains phrases definitive of blurring (”damaging the identity of mark”) and tarnishment (”damaging the fame of any other person”).

Compare Article 2(1)(c) of the Unfair Competition Act of Korea with the definitions of ‘dilution by blurring’ and ‘dilution by tarnishment’ under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 of the U.S..

`dilution by blurring’ is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark.

‘dilution by tarnishment’ is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.

Back on blogging

I’ve had several changes since last November, such as, I moved to a new team, got a new job responsibility (of course), got busier, etc.  Excuse moi for not blogging for a while.  Will be back on blogging mode pretty soon.

Right of publicity in drama

What is the law of right of publicity in Korea?

Will write more later.

Case summary (in Korean) is 2006-ga-hap-36290-summary.pdf .

Entire decision (in Korean) is 2006-ga-hap-36290-case.pdf .

Portal’s liability for its user’s defamatory posts

Is a Portal site liable for its users’ defamatory statement or acts?

Will write more on this later.

Case summary (in Korean) is 2005-ga-hap-64571-summary.pdf .

Entire decision (in Korean) is 2005-ga-hap-64571-case.pdf .

3-D, 2-D Artwork Displayed in Public

What is the scope of copyright protection for a 2-D or 3-D artwork displayed in a public place like hotel?

Will write more on the case later.

Case summary (in Korean) is 2006-ga-hap-104292-summary.pdf .

Entire decision (in Korean) is 2006-ga-hap-104292-case.pdf .

Online game service providers liability for identity theft

There is a recent case from the Central District of Seoul on whether online game service provider is liable for identity theft.

Will write more later.

The case summary (in Korean) is 2006-ga-hap-22338-summary.pdf .

The entire decision (in Korean) is 2006-ga-hap-22338-case.pdf.

Korean Trademark Law governs domain disputes in Korea

The Court of the Central District of Seoul entered a decision on a domain dispute over www.wes.com. Source Article.

I’ll write more on this later on.

The case summary (in Korean) is 2006-ga-dan-53066-summary.pdf.

The entire decision (in Korean) is 2006-ga-hap-53066-case.pdf .

Qbox throws two copyright-related questions

I once blogged on Qbox.com service in December 2005. here. The concept was pretty new and interesting at the time. The site could duly be called a music aggregator, by which one can garble all music sources available on the web and listen to them in an orderly way.

The same guys are opening a new service that is mainly targeted to the English speaking users. See Tatter and Company CEO’s comment on the service at Web 2.0 Asia :: Qbox takes music search to a whole new level

There are two features that may be of interest to copyright lawyers.

One, Qbox is a music metacrawler. In other words, it is a search engine specifically for music sources. As of now, the site crawls YouTube and MySpace, but it won’t take much time until it starts to crawl other sites as well.

Two, Qbox’s Music Marker feature offers an upgraded experience in internet music search and listening. You need to install Qbox Toolbar to use this feature. You will see three icons on the Toolbar. After done with installation, visit a webpage that contains an album name, song title, or an artist name. On the page, you click the Emotional Link icon on the Toolbar (it looks like a snowman) and you will see snowman icons appear next to each word that is or might be an album title, song title, or an artist name.

The first function is raises the good old fashioned search engine liability issues. Qbox search engine metacrawls YouTube and MySpace. Does metacrawling creates copyright liability? No. It’s been well settled that metacrawling per se doesn’t raise copyright liability. But it may/does raise common law liability of trespass in some jurisdictions. That is, once YouTube or MySpace decides to refuse Qbox search engine to metacrawl their site, they will do it on the basis of trespass. They may also block Qbox search engine based on breach of contract. The strength of Qbox doesn’t seem to lie in the fact that they metacrawl YouTube and MySpace but is in the fact that all in all the site offers a new experience in music listening on the internet. Once YouTube or MySpace blocks Qbox metacrawling, Qbox just may as well enter into a license agreement with them or find other sources.

The second feature is quite interesting. If you have been in the internet biz or copyright law practice for a while, you might probably have heard of Third Voice. Third Voice and the ‘overlay’ debate has been hot in 1998 but it has remained as academic interest ever since. Third Voice is a post-it type of service that lets users put their comments on a new article or other web pages and share it with other Third Voice users. Put in paper book analogy, the site is kind of a library that lets (or encourage) users to put sticky with comments on pages of a book and fastly circulate the book among users so that they add to or edit the sticky. On internet, it’s widely called an ‘overlay.’

Before answering whether an ‘overlay’ service creates copyright liability, it should be noted that more and more sites and add-ons to browsers look like Third Voice. A commentator analogized Firefox extension Greasemoneky with Third Voice in that Greasemonkey changes the javascripts on a web page and changes the way a page is viewed. Broadly speaking, any web service or add-ons that change the way a site is viewed may be subject to the same kind of argument to which Third Voice was put to. This issue got more complicated after the Grokster case (Grokster complicates every internet copyright issues, doesn’t it?)

Does the ‘overlay’ function of Third Voice create copyright liability?

Does Greasemonkey create copyright liability?

Does Qbox Emotional Link create copyright liability?

These three questions are slightly different from each other but undergoes pretty much the same analysis.

The first question one gets to ask is, “Where is the direct infringement?” In order for there to be a copyright infringement, there’s gotta be direct infringement. And the direct infringement in these cases occur at the end user side.

End users install Qbox Toolbar and opens a web site and clicks the Emotional Link button and see the snowman icons attached in some positions on a page. When the user clicks the icon, a pop-down menu shows and the user can intuitively use the functionality.

At what point does the user infringes upon the copyright of the page?

A very cautious copyright lawyer will point out that the user infringes copyright once he clicks the Emotional Link icon and changes the shape of the page. The theory being, by opening the page, the user is under personal, non-transferrable, royalty-free license to view the page without modifying the page. By clicking the EL icon and changing the page, the users goes over the scope of license and thus he reproduces and prepare for derivative works without permission.

Once direct infringement holds up, secondary liability analysis will follow.

But I seriously doubt that the direct infringement theory will hold up. Most of the pages look different under different web browsers. Do we infringe upon copyright by using different web browsers and change the way the site is viewed?

I looked through the CYBERIA email list for the Third Voice debate and no conclusion was made on the direct infringement issue. Commentators leave the issue open and move on to the secondary infringement issues. (because secondary infringement issues are worth writing after Grokster) So, the answer is still up in the air.

I’m on the side that there is no direct infringement. Does anyone differ?

Powered by ScribeFire.

FormFactor loses its patents in Korea

The Supreme Court of Korea affirmed the lower court’s decision invalidating FormFactor’s patents, thereby allowing defendant Phicom to continue to use the technology. 파이컴, 반도체 특허소송 美업체에 승소 < 최신기사 < 산업 :: 한경닷컴 ::

I haven’t gotten my paws on the decision, so I will have to wait for several days before I can post my thought on that.

Some view this decision as nationalistic or at least an evidence of loose IPR protection in Korea. Patent Dispute Not True to FormFactor

This seemingly widespread perception of Korea’s not-quite-so-neat IPR protection system is resonating with what I read from bloggers about Starbucks v. StarPreya case. I won’t argue the perception is unfounded. Perception is perception and it’s not a fact. It’s an accumulation of impression from small bits of information. I find it fair for foreigners to think that the Korean legal system is not as hospitable for foreginers as it is for its nationals. I myself am sometimes horrified at Koreans’ extreme nationalistic behaviors as shown in the World Cup 2002, Dr. Hwang’s stem cell research scandal, and the most recent Director Shim Hyung Rae’s D-War movie syndrome. But, as I wrote in the Starbucks v. StarPreya post, I’m not hundred percent convinced that the judges’ decisions are nationalistically biased. When I come by the FormFactor decision, I might try to read between the lines and catch whether the Supreme Court’s decision was swayed by the sentiment of protecting OUR companies from the FOREIGN PREDATORS.

This case may also serve as another material for proving or disproving the perception that Korean courts are lenient towards small and medium companies when it comes to the battle between SMEs and big corps. This has been raised by Dram man in his comment on my iPhone Unlocking. I’m sure this is another widespread perception among foreign lawyers, foreign investors, and foreigners in general.

Another spin in this case is the US government’s effort to influence the decision. I heard from a source that the U.S. gov’t delivered messages through diplomatic channel. One can easily guess what the messages might have been. US industry’s negative perception about a foreign country’s legal system is one thing, US gov’t sending diplomatic messages to influence court’s decision is another. It reveals the attitude the US gov’t is taking in dealing with matters like this.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Technorati Tags: FormFactor, patent, koera

SCVs of internet media step up

온신협등 6단체, 뉴스·콘텐츠 유통질서 바로잡는다 : 사회일반 : 사회 : 뉴스 : 한겨레

It has been for years that the Korean internet portals (Naver.com, Daum.net, Nate.com, to name a few) have outpowered newspaper companies in the Korean internet news provision market.  Newspaper companies are mere small subcontractors for the internet portals. 

It was reported (somewhere) that the internet portals buy all news articles from each newspaper company on a yearly bulk purchase basis.  The internet portals pick and choose from the bulk news articles that are best selling to the internet readers. 

Those who read news articles mainly from internet portals appear to prefer scandalous and sensational pieces of junky news.  Yeah, yellow journalism again.  This triggered a vicious circle of competition to the ground.

The vicious circle may not be as big a problem for news “paper” companies as it is for independent internet news companies. Independent internet news companies rely solely on internet advertising and royalties from selling their articles.  Stats show that internet news companies’ exposure rely heavily on how many of their articles were picked by portals and displayed on the main pages of the portal sites. Their major revenue stream hangs on the fingertip of portals. 

So, as the linked article says, internet reporters and internet news companies made an association, named News Contents Copyright Holders Association.

As much as the problems they raise are about copyright law, are they  about anti-trust and unfair competition. 

I haven’t seen an agreement between internet portals and newspaper companies.  But, I wouldn’t be surprised to read a fairly one-sided contract in favor of the internet portals.  The Korean FTC will step in if the Association petition for adjudication.  Before that, what can be done by the news companies and reporters?

I think the power structures in many industries in Korea, especially the internet, media, and entertainment, have dramatically changed for the last decade, cracking sound of which are only being recently heard. 

Powered by ScribeFire.

Deezer.com formerly known as blogmusik.net

One of the ideas revolving around blogging platforms is an embedded music player.  A music player embedded in a blog lets visitors listen to the music from the stream it is delivering.  An instant question from a copyright-sensitive person would be, “is it legal?”  Press release from deezer.com, formerly known as blogmusik.net, seems to say, “No, unless you make a license agreement with the copyright holders or their agents.”

According to the press release, Deezer.com made copyright royalty agreements with SACEM (Society for the Collective Management of Copyright Royalties, France) and SESAM (Society for the Management of Digital Rights, France).  The company is said to be in talks with music labels and SPPF (Society for the Management of Independent Producers’ Rights, France).

Problems solved by these agreements.  Legally, that is.

Financially, Deezer.com says SACEM and Deezer.com succeeded in offering “Internet users a non-paying solution whilst still remunerating those involved in the creation of the music (artists, record companies, etc.) though the advertising revenues generated.  I’ve been a skeptic of operating a company with advertising revenue.  We will see whether the embedded players will keep playing.

Drama productions v Broadcasting companies

Drama market in Korea is big.  That’s for sure.  Example) The overall cost of production for Tae Wang Sa Shin Gi (태왕사신기) is said to be about 40 billion won (somewhere around $40 million).   Tae Wang Sa Shin Gi was made by Kim Jong Hak Production, a producing company lead by former MBC drama director.

And it seems that there is an association of drama producing companies, which is the Drama Producer Association (of Korea).  Major members include Kim Jong Hak Production (김종학프로덕션), Cho Rok Baem Media (초록뱀미디어), Sam Hwa Networks (삼화네트웍스).  They had a press conference today and pledged for fair contractual relationship with broadcasting companies.  News Article here.

Drama producers are in weak bargaining position against broadcasting companies.  Broadcasting companies have allegedly used their leverage to draft allegedly unfair contract with producing companies.

For example, producers start shooting dramas after getting 40 to 60% of the contracted price.  In return for the contract, broadcasting companies have the copyrights, rights on derivative works, transmission rights, reproduction right, and all sales rights on all types of copyrighted works in and about the drama.  Plus, after 3 years from the production, the broadcasting companies take all the rights.  Hence, the producers get nothing after 3 years.

The Drama Producer Association claims that the more drama they make, the more money they lose.  If this is true, it can be a trust and an unfair practices.  (I’m not sure why they have to keep making dramas while they lose money from it.)

I haven’t had a chance to look at the broadcasting company-producer contract in Korea.  But I won’t be surprised to face a severely one-sided  contract.

As a no-TV-in-my-room guy, I don’t care too much about whether the drama productions go bankrupt and I might never see a drama produced by a Korean.  But, I’m very interested in unfair practices.  We will see whether this press conference moves the rock an inch.

DualCor sues Intel over ‘dual core’

DualCor Technology라는 회사가 Intel의 ‘dual core’라는 브랜드 사용이 자기네 상표권 위반이라며 손해배상 및 사용금지처분 소송을 제기했다고 한다. 관련기사

dualcor는 미국특허상표청(USPTO)에 상표로 등록되어 있다.

Word Mark	DUALCOR
Goods and Services	IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computers; mobile computers; mobile communicators, namely, mobile data receivers; wireless computers; wireless communicators, namely, wireless telephones; cellular communicators, namely, cellular telephones; multimedia communicators, namely, personal digital assistants; wireless computer peripherals; computer hardware and software for use in communication management, e-mail communications, database management, for use as a spreadsheet, word processor, presentation and other productivity and web applications; and wireless access points, namely, LAN (local area network) access points for connecting network computer users. FIRST USE: 20031212. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20051201
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code	(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number	78419233
Filing Date	May 14, 2004
Current Filing Basis	1A
Original Filing Basis	1B
Published for Opposition	September 13, 2005
Registration Number	3121648
Registration Date	July 25, 2006
Owner	(REGISTRANT) Dualcor Technologies, Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA Two Embarcadero Center Suite 200 San Francisco CALIFORNIA 94111
Attorney of Record	David C. Ashby
Type of Mark	TRADEMARK
Register	PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator	LIVE

2가지 큰 이슈가 있겠다.

첫째는, dual core라는 단어 조합이 보통의 이름(generic name)인가 하는 것이다. dual core가 core가 2개 있으니까 dual core라고 부르는 것이 당연하다고 인텔이 주장할 테고, 어느 정도는 타당하다. double core라고 하지 않고 dual core라고 하는 것이 더 자연스럽나? CPU 업계에서 dual core라고 부르는 것이 관행이었다면 그런 사실이 중요한 증거가 될 것이다.

둘째는, dualcor와 dual core의 유사성 여부다. ‘e’ 한 자만 다르고 나머지는 다 같으니까 유사하다고 볼 여지는 충분하다. 하지만 dualcor는 한 단어로 붙여 쓰면서 dual core와는 좀 다르게 보이는 것도 사실이다.

끝말.

Dual Core도 상표등록 되어 있는데, 이는 24, 42, 50류에 대해서만 등록이 되어 있다. (’류’ Nice 협약에 따른 상표등록을 위한 상품분류 class이다.) Dual-Core도 등록이 되어 있는데, 이건 9, 13류에 대해서만 등록이 되어 있다. 인텔은 dual core를 브랜드로 쓸 때, 사전 조사를 했을테고 dual core와 dual-core가 상품 분류가 CPU와 다르므로 안심을 했을 것이다. 그런데 dualcor가 불쑥 나타났다. dual을 포함한 모든 단어를 다 검색해보면 꽤 많은 등록상표가 나온다. 이런 위험을 무릅쓰고 그냥 쓴 건가?

Movie Downloading in 2007

I got to hear the name ‘Movie People’s Association for the Prevention of Illegal Copy’ from a news article. According to the news, the Association sent letters to major internet portals and specialized file sharing sites and UCC companies requesting cease of copyright infringement. The number of companies that received the letters were reported to be 90, 74 of which replied and expressed their willingness to cooperate. However, only 3 of the 74 who replied immediately stopped service or took down their sites.

One,

More than one companies stopped services or shut their websites down. Very interesting. I wonder who they are.

Second,

The news mentions the 2007 Copyright Act that requires technical measures preventing illegal copying. I have no data on how many websites or internet services have actually implemented technical measures after the new Copyright Act went into force (July 2007). The news says illegal copies of music can still be downloaded from the websites or services equipped with the technical measures.

Third,

The Association’s effort for resolving the issue by exchanging letters with the internet industry is only one facet of the picture. There have been police investigations on illegal downloading with the assistance of the internet access providers (KT, Hanaro, LG Powercom). An anonymous user of parkoz.com (hardware review site) was reported to be subpoenaed by police and had to pay 700,000 won fine for illegal downloading. The original post was deleted from parkoz.com and only copies of the post can be found on several blogs including here. No detail has been told, who requested police investigation or how many people were subpoenaed, etc. The copyright holders aren’t just sitting there with arms folded. That’s what I know now.

Fourth,

The law firm of Yoon Yang Kim Shin & Yu (better known as Hwa Woo in Korea) represents the Association. YYKSY is one of the top 5 law firms in Korea. The name alone delivers certain message to the internet industry.

Fifth,

I still don’t know who these ‘Movie People’s Association’ are. Movie people (영화인 in Korean) is a generic concept that comprises all kinds of people who are IN THE MOVIE INDUSTRY. They might be producers, directors, actors, staff, or even choreographers or artists. Who have the most stake in preventing illegal movie copies?

인터넷 변호사의 역할

1. 인터넷 변호사란 말은 정착된 용어가 아니다. Internet Law란 말은 정착되지는 않았지만 널리 쓰인다. Internet에만 국한된 법이 있는 게 아니고, 상표법, 저작권법, First Amendment, Privacy, 그외 각종 자잘한 법들이 Internet에서의 활동들에 관련이 되므로 이들 법 중에서 Internet에 관련된 부분만을 모아서 Internet Law라고 말한다. 그리고 Internet Law를 주로 맡는 변호사를 Internet Lawyer라 한다 해서 심하게 문제가 있지는 않다.

2. Web 2.0이 대세가 되고 나서 새로 생겨나는 사이트들이 엄청나게 많다. 일일이 어떤 사이트가 생겨나는지를 확인하기가 힘들 정도다. 나는 낮에 풀타임으로 일하는 직장이 있기 때문에 저녁이나 주말에 그런 트렌드들을 관찰해야 하는데, 트렌드를 따라가는 것도 쉽지 않다.

3. 대부분의 새로운 사이트들은 엄밀한 법적인 검토를 하지 않은 채 서비스를 시작한다. 그럴 비용이면 서버 한 대를 더 사고 만다. 사실 돈이 충분하지가 않아서 변호사를 구하지 못한다.

4. 어떤 사람이 그랬는데, 기억에는 다국적 로펌의 고위급 변호사였던 듯, 변호사는 옵션 브로커가 되어가고 있다. 그가 말한 옵션은 금융시장에서 말하는 옵션은 아니다. 말 그대로 선택사항이다. 비즈니스를 하다 보면 여러 가지 초이스 중에 하나를 선택해야 하는데, 결정자가 현명한 선택을 할 수 있도록 옵션을 가공해서 보여주는 사람이 변호사라는 말이다. 이 말은 Internet Law에서는 제대로 들어맞는 말이다. 인터넷 비즈니스를 하는 사람들은 사이트 개발의 매단계에서 선택을 해야 한다. (물론 다른 비즈니스들도 그러하다) 그 순간순간의 선택에서 저작권, 상표권, unfair practices 등의 법률 적용이 어떻게 되는지를 아는 것은 결정에 큰 도움이 된다. 인터넷 비즈니스 환경에서 ‘옵션 브로커’의 역할은 중요하다.

5. 변호사 윤리 위반이 되는지 확실하게 모르겠는데, ‘옵션 브로커’로서 변호사가 개척할 수 있는 비즈니스 영역이 하나 생각이 났다. 어떤 인터넷 회사가 서비스를 개발할 때 그 비즈니스 아이디어가 소송에 휘말리게 될 확률은 얼마가 될까를 계산해주는 것이다. 여기에 대해서는 rough하게 생각해놓은 게 있긴 한데, 그게 실제로 얼마나 맞을지는 모르겠다. 이 비즈니스 모델의 문제는 하이젠베르크의 불확정성 원리와 같은 딜레마이다. 소송당할 확률이 높다는 예측이 맞으면 회사는 소송당하지 않게 서비스의 구조를 변경하게 되니 소송을 당하지 않게 되므로 예측이 틀리는 것처럼 보이게 된다. 소송당하지 않을 것이라는 예측을 하게 되면 회사는 법적 안전장치 마련에 소홀하게 될 가능성이 높아서 되려 소송을 당하게 되어 결국 예측이 틀리게 된다. (이건 회사의 서비스 구조가 피드백을 반영하여 계속 바뀐다는 가정하에 이루어진 것이다.) 즉, 예측 모델의 검증이 아주 어려워진다는 점이 이 비즈니스 모델의 문제이다. 다만, 제3자의 유사한 웹사이트가 법적인 문제에 시달리게 되는지를 관찰함으로써 간접적인 검증은 되긴 할 것이다.

iPhone Unlocking

(오랫만에 한글로 포스팅)

한국에서는 iPhone을 쓸 수 없다. iPhone이 GSM 방식으로만 만들어져서 CDMA 방식으로 휴대전화망이 구축되어 있는 한국에서는 통화 자체가 안 되기 때문이다. (혹시 틀렸다면 지적 부탁)

근데 미국이라고 iPhone을 맘대로 쓸 수 있는 것은 아니다. AT&T망으로만 이용할 수 있게 Apple이 AT&T와 계약을 맺어서 iPhone은 AT&T망으로만 이용가능하다. (근데 AT&T가 T-Mobile에 인수되었나? 미국에서 돌아온 후에 휴대전화 시장에 좀 변화가 있었다는데 정확하게 follow up이 안 되고 있음)

미국에서는 대부분의 휴대전화 사용자들이 2년 정도의 계약기간을 약정하고 휴대전화를 구입하게 된다. 그 계약에 따르면 특정 휴대전화 회사를 계약기간만큼 이용해야 한다. 그 대가로 휴대전화를 싼값에 구하게 된다. Cingular나 Verizon을 이용하는 사용자들이 상당수가 되는데, 이들은 iPhone을 이용할 수 없다.

Inquisitive mind를 가진 미국인들은 iPhone을 Cingular(이게 합병되었나?)나 Verizon에 쓰고 싶어한다. 한국도 좀 있으면 USIM 카드가 도입된다는데, 미국은 오래 전부터 USIM 카드가 도입되어서 USIM만 바꾸면 휴대전화 기기는 아주 쉽게 기변할 수 있다. 그런데 iPhone은 안 된다는 것이다. 아마 USIM 카드를 안 쓰거나, USIM 카드를 쓰더라도 AT&T 망에서만 작동되는 USIM 카드를 쓰거나 하겠지. iPhone을 만져본 적도 없으니 정확하게 분석을 못하겠다. 또한 iPhone내에 프로그램을 심어서 iPhone을 다른 휴대전화 망에서 이용못하도록 해놓은 모양이다.

Inquisitive minds들은 iPhone의 내장 소프트웨어를 건드린 것 같다. reverse engineering 등의 방법을 썼겠지. 하드웨어를 건드렸냐 아니면 소프트웨어를 건드렸냐에 따라서 그 법률적 효과는 조금 차이가 있다.

하드웨어를 건드리는 경우는 mods라 해서 게임 콘솔 해킹에 많이 쓰이는 방법이다. P/S 시리즈나 Xbox시리즈 등은 mods의 유혹이 강하게 느껴지는 기계들 아닌가? Xbox 360은 하드웨어 성능도 상당한 것 같고.

하드웨어에 대해서는 이전에 xbox mods에 대한 포스트에서 잠시 다룬 적이 있고, 소프트웨어를 건드리는 것에 대해서는 아직 다룬 적이 없다.

여기에 대해 상당히 흥미로운 미국 저작권청 견해가 발표되었는데, 2006년 견해이니까 좀 된 거긴 하다.

간단히 요약하면, phone unlocking (이거가 업계에서는 일상적으로 쓰이는 말이 되었는데)은 DMCA상의 circumvention (17 U.S.C. 1201(a))이 아니고 거기서 exempt되는 것이다. 이거는 법논리적인 결론이 아니고 public poilcy에 근거한 판단이다. 언제든지 법원에서 뒤집힐 수 있는 견해이다. 하지만, 내가 보기에는 법원까지 가지는 않을 것 같다. 그래서 여기서 멈출 것 같다.

참! 근데 여기서 끝난 것은 아니다. 이건 phone unlocking이 소프트웨어를 건드렸을 때 저작권 침해가 아니라는 것일 뿐이다. 그럼 다른 게 뭐가 있냐고? 가장 직접적인 건 계약 위반이다. iPhone을 구입하고 AT&T와 2년 약정을 맺었을 때 계약서를 썼을 것이다. 그 계약의 내용을 들여다 봐야 한다. 그 계약의 문구를 위반한 것이라면? phone unlocking한 사람 입장에서는 그 계약서 중에 phone unlocking을 금지하는 조항이 불법이라는 걸 증명하려 할테지.

이와는 별도로, phone unlocking한 사람이 상업적으로 phone unlocking을 해서 팔았을 때에는 trademark 문제도 생기고, unfair practice 문제도 걸리고 하면서 법적인 문제가 그야말로 눈덩이처럼 불어난다.

간단히 요약하자면서 간단히 안 되는 건데, 우선 개인 사용 목적으로 phone unlocking 하면 저작권 문제는 발생하지 않을 가능성이 높다. 하지만, 계약 위반의 가능성이 남아 있다. 특허 침해의 가능성은 낮다.

상업적 목적으로 phone unlocking했다면, 저작권 문제는 개인의 경우보다는 조금더 문제가 커질 수 있다. 계약 위반의 가능성은 여전히 있고, 상표 침해와 특허 침해의 가능성이 있다. 거기다가 Apple와 AT&T에서는 (Apple보다는 AT&T가 더 민감하게 대응할 것인데) unfair practices니 하는 것들을 들고 나와서 복잡하게 만들 것이다.

그쯤 진행되면 정말 총알(돈) 싸움이 된다.

그리고, 깊이 있게 분석해보지 않은 문제이기 때문에 오류가 있다면 지적은 언제든 환영.

Is Musical Copyrightable in Korea?

Seoul High Court (서울고등법원, equivalent to a federal/state appellate court in the U.S.) made a decision on whether a musical is a protectible subject matter under the Copyright Act of Korea. (May 22, 2007) Case number is 2006 Na 47785 (2006나47785).

The plaintiffs were the producer, the planner, and the director of the successful musical, Singing in the Rain (사랑은 비를 타고). This isn’t a musical version of the famous movie, Singing in the Rain. It’s based on the less famous movie, My Fabulous Baker Boys. (I haven’t seen it.)

The musical is still playing. Below is its poster.

Facts of the case is a little complicated. I made a chart to explain the factual relations. See the chart below. Click the thumbnail to see the original sized chart.

1. Facts

(1) Stage One: From 1995 to 1999

Three plaintiffs, Original Producer (P1), Original Planner (P2), Original Director (P3), and a Second Producer (Third Party 1) started to make the musical Singing in the Rain (the Musical).

Original Planner made a written contract (Contract 1) with Composer (Defendant 2) for composing music for the Musical.

Original Director made an oral contract (Contract 2) with Scriptwriter (Defendant 4).

Hence, musical and literary parts of the Musical were made by the Composer and the Scriptwriter.

P1, P2, P3, and Third Party 1 ran the Musical from 1995 to 1995. The Musical was commercially successful.

(2) Stage 2: Year 2001

For some reasons, P1, P2, and P3 went out of the picture after the first stage. In 2001, Second Producer (Third Party 1) contracted with Composer and Scriptwriter. Second Producer made a written contract with Composer for arrangement of the original music (Contract 3). Second Producer made a licensing contract with Scriptwriter for the use of the scripts.

Second Producer ran the show for several months in 2001. The Musical was commercially successful again.

(3) Stage 3: Year 2002

Second Producer runs the Musical again in the year 2002. Original Director (P3) comes back into play as director. Composer and Scriptwriter work again as composer and scriptwriter (or granted license to use the music and script).

The opinion of the court does not say anything about contractual relationship between Second Producer and Composer or Scriptwriter. It was irrelevant to the issue before the court.

The Musical was again commercially successful.

(4) Stage 4: Year 2006

Stage 4 was the reason why this case was litigated.

New Producer 1 (Defendant 1) and New Producer 2 (Defendant 2) suddenly have come onto the stage with no prior relationship with any of the parties mentioned above. D1 and D2 contracted with Composer for working as director/composer. They also contracted with Scriptwriter for working as script manager.

So, in Stage 4, none of the plaintiffs were in the picture. D1 and D2 only contracted with the Composer and Scriptwriter.

Hence, P1, P2, and P3 sued D1 and D2 for copyright infringement. They lost at the local court (equivalent to district court in the U.S.) and appealed.

Legal analysis will follow soon.