DSpace Community:
https://www.klri.re.kr:9443/handle/2017.oak/116
2024-03-28T11:01:39ZThe Trademark MUMUSO.KR and the Protection of Vietnamese Consumers' Rights
https://www.klri.re.kr:9443/handle/2017.oak/6482
Title: The Trademark MUMUSO.KR and the Protection of Vietnamese Consumers' Rights
Author(s): Thanh Mai Le
Abstract: In accordance with the Korea Trademark Act, the trademark MUMUSO.KR
(MUMUSO with insignia ".KR" inside of the letter "O") was granted protection
by the Korean Intellectual Property Office under Korean Certificate of
Trademark Registration No. 401141318 on November 06, 2015 (filing date
December 18, 2014, registration date November 06, 2015).1
The mark is also
granted protection in Vietnam in accordance with the Vietnam Intellectual
Property Law and Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the
International Registration of Marks (Madrid Protocol) under International
Registration No. 1330965, and valid up to November 18, 2026.2
The trademark
owner is MUMUSOKR Co. Ltd. established in Seoul.
MUMUSO.KR mark is not used in Korea. However, this mark has been in use
in Vietnam by MUMUSO Vietnam Export - Import Co. Ltd. (MUMUSO
Vietnam). It has opened more than 20 MUMUSO stores countrywide.
MUMUSO’s products include: Health and beauty care products, clothes and
accessories, house-wares, electrical and electronic equipment. Almost MUMUSO's
goods are China-made goods. But the MUMUSO's stores use the trademark
MUMUSO.KR in combination with Korean indication and the slogans of
“Korean fashion style”, “Coming from Korea”, “MUMUSO is typical for a
simplicity, model and healthy living of Korea style” to cause the confusion
about MUMUSO's product origin.3
Further, the appearance of MUMUSO's
goods is relatively familiar with Korean goods and Vietnamese consumers
believe that these products are of Korean quality albeit being made in China.
This article will analyze legal aspects concerning MUMUSO.KR mark, legal
grounds for trademark use in Korea and Vietnam and the protection of
consumers' rights from the use of confusing mark of MUMUSO.KR origin.2018-11-30T00:00:00ZThe EU System for the Protection of Geographical Indications and Its External Dimension
https://www.klri.re.kr:9443/handle/2017.oak/6478
Title: The EU System for the Protection of Geographical Indications and Its External Dimension
Author(s): Stefan Brocza
Abstract: The European Union (EU) has established an extensive legal framework for
the protection of geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products,
foodstuffs, wines, and spirits. GIs are distinctive signs used to identify a
product originating in a territory of a particular country, region, or locality
where its quality, reputation, or other characteristic is linked to its geographical
origin.
In addition, the EU is active in multilateral and bilateral negotiations on this
issue. At a multilateral level, they are within the WTO framework. At a
bilateral level, it uses two different frameworks: the specific stand alone
agreements on GIs (e.g. the currently negotiated agreement with China) and
the broader trade agreements (e.g. the Free Trade Agreement (FTA)), such as
the negotiations for an EU-Vietnam FTA or the negotiations for an FTA with
Japan.
The EU has already concluded a series of free trade agreements that contain
important levels of protection for geographical indications, such as the EUKorea FTA or the EU-Singapore FTA.
In summary, the EU internal rules together with the external agreements
concerning the protection of GIs created the world’s largest legal system for
GIs. The article presents this legal framework and focuses on the external
dimension, e.g. the rights and obligations for participating third countries.
Special emphasis thereby is given to the situation in Korea.2018-06-01T00:00:00ZProtection of Performers’ Rights under Indonesian Copyright Law and International Conventions
https://www.klri.re.kr:9443/handle/2017.oak/6477
Title: Protection of Performers’ Rights under Indonesian Copyright Law and International Conventions
Author(s): Muhammad Hawin
Abstract: This paper aims to analyze performers’ rights in Indonesian Copyright Law
compared to some international conventions, namely the Rome Convention,
the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the
TRIPS Agreement), the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (the
WPPT), and the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (the BTAP). It
also aims to find out whether or not Indonesian Copyright Law is in line with
the BTAP and to recommend what the country should do when ratifying the
BTAP.
The research uses a normative approach, by way of analyzing certain
provisions in Indonesian Copyright Laws and international conventions and
incorporating materials or information from books, journals and Internet
sources as supporting arguments. The method of analysis is a comparative one.
The paper finds that Indonesia’s Copyright Act of 2002 provided only
minimal rights to performers and was not in line with the TRIPS Agreement
because, unlike the Agreement, the Act did not grant performers protection of
unfixed performance. In relation to performers’ rights, Indonesia’s Copyright
Act of 2014 is better than the Rome Convention because, unlike the
Convention, the Act confers moral rights. Performers’ rights under the
Copyright Act of 2014 are very similar to those in the WPPT. Nevertheless, in
respect of the right of integrity, the Act gives better protection than the WPPT.
The moral rights and economic rights of performers in the Copyright Act of
2014 are quite similar to those in the BTAP. However, as long as the
definition of “fixation” in the Act is not extended to audiovisual fixation, the
Act cannot be understood to grant moral rights and economic rights to
audiovisual performers. Therefore, as the stance of the Copyright Act of 2014
is not yet in line with the BTAP and the current situation in Indonesia is not
ready to protect audiovisual performers, the paper recommends that, when
ratifying the BTAP, the country avail itself of the leniency found in the BTAP
and amend the Copyright Act of 2014 to be in line with the Treaty.2018-06-01T00:00:00ZEmergency Arbitration in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Cases: Challenges and Perspectives for Arbitration Institutions
https://www.klri.re.kr:9443/handle/2017.oak/6474
Title: Emergency Arbitration in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Cases: Challenges and Perspectives for Arbitration Institutions
Author(s): Alexandr Svetlicinii
Abstract: During the past decade, the arbitration institutions experienced growing
demand for adequate procedures and standards that meet the requirements of
the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The emergency arbitration (EA)
is gradually becoming one of such requirements as the parties often
experience an urgent need of interim relief that precedes the constitution of
the arbitral tribunal and commencement of the regular arbitration proceedings.
In order to meet this demand, numerous arbitration institutions have
introduced emergency arbitration procedures under their arbitration rules.
While the arbitration institutions have already accumulated certain experience
in applying emergency arbitration in commercial cases, the first ISDS EA
cases under the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have started to emerge
only in 2014. The paper provides a critical analysis on the suitability of the
current emergency arbitration rules to the peculiarities of ISDS including
issues such as timing, applicability of the “cooling-off clauses” under the
relevant BITs, substantive criteria for granting interim relief, and the
enforceability of the EA decisions. The research builds on the study of the
first EA decisions rendered in ISDS cases.2018-06-01T00:00:00Z