요즘 수입업자들이 직접 진정상품을 병행수입하여 온라인 쇼핑몰을 통하여 직접 판매하거나 또는 소비자들이 온라인 쇼핑몰을 통해 해외 직구에 의하여 제품을 구매하는 행위가 성행하고 있다. 이렇듯 진정상품병행수입이 성행하는 이유는 다국적 기업의 가격차별화정책이나 국가마다 다른 환율정책 등에 의하여 발생된다. 이와 관련하여 파리협약의 속지주의 원칙에 따라 진정상품병행수입을 금지하자는 견해도 있지만, 대부분의 국가들은 국제소진론이나 상표기능론에 입각하여 일정한 경우에 진정상품병행수입을 허용하고 있다. 하지만 이렇게 수입이 허용된 진정상품의 광고를 어디까지 허용하는지가 문제이다. 이와 관련하여 판례는 병행수입업자가 국내에서 병행수입품을 소극적으로 판매하는 행위는 상표권 침해도 아니고 또 부정경쟁방지법상 부정경쟁행위도 아니지만, 병행수입업자가 국내에서 적극적으로 상표권자의 상표를 사용하여 광고 및 선전을 하는 행위는 일정한 경우 부정경쟁방지법상 부정경쟁행위에 해당된다고 본다. 이러한 판례의 태도가 올바른 판단인지, 또 이러한 판례가 온라인 쇼핑몰에서도 그대로 적용될 수가 있는 지 등이 새로운 문제로 대두되고 있다.
요즘 수입업자들이 직접 진정상품을 병행수입하여 온라인 쇼핑몰을 통하여 직접 판매하거나 또는 소비자들이 온라인 쇼핑몰을 통해 해외 직구에 의하여 제품을 구매하는 행위가 성행하고 있다. 이렇듯 진정상품병행수입이 성행하는 이유는 다국적 기업의 가격차별화정책이나 국가마다 다른 환율정책 등에 의하여 발생된다. 이와 관련하여 파리협약의 속지주의 원칙에 따라 진정상품병행수입을 금지하자는 견해도 있지만, 대부분의 국가들은 국제소진론이나 상표기능론에 입각하여 일정한 경우에 진정상품병행수입을 허용하고 있다. 하지만 이렇게 수입이 허용된 진정상품의 광고를 어디까지 허용하는지가 문제이다. 이와 관련하여 판례는 병행수입업자가 국내에서 병행수입품을 소극적으로 판매하는 행위는 상표권 침해도 아니고 또 부정경쟁방지법상 부정경쟁행위도 아니지만, 병행수입업자가 국내에서 적극적으로 상표권자의 상표를 사용하여 광고 및 선전을 하는 행위는 일정한 경우 부정경쟁방지법상 부정경쟁행위에 해당된다고 본다. 이러한 판례의 태도가 올바른 판단인지, 또 이러한 판례가 온라인 쇼핑몰에서도 그대로 적용될 수가 있는 지 등이 새로운 문제로 대두되고 있다.
The parallel importation of genuine goods is caused by the price discrimination policy of multi-national companies and the exchange rate policy of different countries. This importation can have positive effects such as the reduction of the international price gap and the purchase of products by cons...
The parallel importation of genuine goods is caused by the price discrimination policy of multi-national companies and the exchange rate policy of different countries. This importation can have positive effects such as the reduction of the international price gap and the purchase of products by consumers according to their needs. Therefore Most countries allow the parallel importation of genuine goods on the basis of international incidences or trademark functionalities. Korea does not recognize the importation of such genuine goods under the Korea Customs Service Act, but it provides for the requirement for the parallel importation of genuine goods to be recognized through the "Notification on the processing of export and import customs offices for the protection of intellectual property." The court also said that the parallel importation of genuine goods is allowed, if the goods are genuine, if the trademark attached to the imported goods indicates the same source as the Korean registered trademark, and if there is no real difference in the quality of the goods, such as the type of products not changed or quality has not changed. Although such importation is allowed in certain cases, advertising activities are necessary for parallel importers to make profits by selling them here. In this regard, the case is that the passive sale of parallel goods by parallel importers in Korea is not a trademark infringement nor an illegal competition under the Anti-Competition Act. However, the actively advertising action by parallel importers using trademarks in Korea is not a trademark infringement based on the trademark's functional theory, but in principle, it constitutes an act of unfair competition under the Anti-Competition Act. Of course, in this case, parallel importers' advertising on signs, packaging and shopping bags, and advertisements in the store is not unfair competition behaviour, but advertising on internal signboards in offices, sales offices, and stores and business cards is unfair competition behaviour. However, it is unlikely that this case will be applied to online shopping malls. Since Activities for passive sales of genuine goods in online shopping malls are different from those of offline ones, the concept of mixed sales under the anti-competition law should be thoroughly examined. Thus, in order to avoid this legal problem, parallel importers may also indicate that the products they sell in online shopping malls are genuine goods.
The parallel importation of genuine goods is caused by the price discrimination policy of multi-national companies and the exchange rate policy of different countries. This importation can have positive effects such as the reduction of the international price gap and the purchase of products by consumers according to their needs. Therefore Most countries allow the parallel importation of genuine goods on the basis of international incidences or trademark functionalities. Korea does not recognize the importation of such genuine goods under the Korea Customs Service Act, but it provides for the requirement for the parallel importation of genuine goods to be recognized through the "Notification on the processing of export and import customs offices for the protection of intellectual property." The court also said that the parallel importation of genuine goods is allowed, if the goods are genuine, if the trademark attached to the imported goods indicates the same source as the Korean registered trademark, and if there is no real difference in the quality of the goods, such as the type of products not changed or quality has not changed. Although such importation is allowed in certain cases, advertising activities are necessary for parallel importers to make profits by selling them here. In this regard, the case is that the passive sale of parallel goods by parallel importers in Korea is not a trademark infringement nor an illegal competition under the Anti-Competition Act. However, the actively advertising action by parallel importers using trademarks in Korea is not a trademark infringement based on the trademark's functional theory, but in principle, it constitutes an act of unfair competition under the Anti-Competition Act. Of course, in this case, parallel importers' advertising on signs, packaging and shopping bags, and advertisements in the store is not unfair competition behaviour, but advertising on internal signboards in offices, sales offices, and stores and business cards is unfair competition behaviour. However, it is unlikely that this case will be applied to online shopping malls. Since Activities for passive sales of genuine goods in online shopping malls are different from those of offline ones, the concept of mixed sales under the anti-competition law should be thoroughly examined. Thus, in order to avoid this legal problem, parallel importers may also indicate that the products they sell in online shopping malls are genuine goods.
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.