1. Domain Name (URL)
A domain name can be registered as a trademark without receiving special treatment. When similar or identical goods and services are sold through similar or identical domain name, this is an act of unfair competition and is defined as trademark infringement.
2. Parallel Import of Genuine Products
Parallel import refers to importing goods into Korea without going through an official channel. In order to be permitted as parallel import, 1) foreign and domestic trademark holders must have attached the trademark to the imported goods, and 2) the attached trademark is a domestic registered trademark.
3. Trade dress
Trade dress is all the factors provided to consumers as marketing for a product or service. The trade dress, visual and non-visual elements such as figures, labels, characters, three-dimensional shapes, sounds, and smells, can be protected through trademark registration. It can also be protected by applying the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
4. Trademark infringement issues
1) Internet keyword advertising as infringement of trademark rights: The core of the dispute between trademark rights and Internet keyword advertising is whether or not excessive keyword use can be recognized as an act of trademark use. Already, Google and various portal sites are selling search keywords to advertisers. It is clear that such keyword trading has the potential to damage the reputation, publicity, and quality of the product.
The European Court of Justice regards this issue as an infringement of trademark rights, but North America (USA and Canada) does not regard keyword advertising as an infringement of trademark rights. It remains to be seen what kind of judgment the Korean court will make in a similar case in the future.
2) Internet open market and trademark infringement: The sale of counterfeit products through the Internet has become a problem, and controversy has arisen over the responsibility of the operator of the open market. In the case of Korea, the open market operator is not responsible because it is not the possession and direct counterfeiting of products. In this case, the open market operator should leave the judgment of whether or not he/she is responsible for aiding illegal acts under the Civil Code to the court. In one case, it was concluded as follows:
“The open market operator has no contractual, legal or culinary duty to prevent counterfeit product sales that occurs in the open market. However, if counterfeiting is evident, the open market operator is obliged to take measures to stop the distribution of counterfeit products to the extent technically and economically feasible.”
The above means that, unless counterfeit product sales are evident, there was no responsibility to the open market owner. In order to prevent trademark infringement and confusion in the open market, it seems necessary to make legislative efforts such as the enactment of new trademark laws or special laws.
댓글