미국 판례법상의 그라이프 사이트에 관한 고찰 (Gripe Sites and Consumer Protection)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 외법논집 / 37권 / 2호 / 135 ~ 149페이지
· 저자명 : 윤우일

초록

인터넷과 전자상거래 영역에서의 폭발적인 발전은 과거에 볼 수 없었던 여러 가지 법적인 문제를 야기시키고 있는 바, 그 대표적인 예가 도메인이름이 상표와 같은 기능을 하면서 야기된,도메인이름을 둘러싼 법적인 분쟁이다. 애초 도메인이름 분쟁은 무단점유(Cybersquatting)에서 비롯된 상표권자와 도메인이름 등록인 사이의 이해관계 충돌에서 시작되었으나, 이러한 전형적인도메인이름분쟁은 각국의 법원 판결과 국제적인도메인이름분쟁해결절차인 통일도메인이름분쟁해결규정(Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 이하 ‘UDRP’)1)을 통해 어느 정도는 진정국면에 들어섰다고 볼 수 있고, 이제는 도메인이름에 대해 정당한 권리가 있는 자들 사이의 다툼,도메인이름에 대해 정당한 권리가 있는 도메인이름등록인으로부터 상표권자가 도메인이름을 빼앗는 역 하이재킹(Reverse Domain Name Hijacking)문제, 지리적 명칭이나 유명인 성명과 관련된 도메인이름 분쟁 등 도메인이름의 분쟁이 더욱 더 복잡해져가고 있는 것이 현실이고, 그 중 대표적인예 중의 하나가 사회단체나 기업 등을 비판하는도메인이름 등록인과 상표권자 사이의 갈등에서비롯되는 그라이프 사이트(Gripe Site)2) 문제라고할 수 있다.

영어초록

A battle for consumer mindshare between the trademark holders and the creators of gripe sites is raging on the Internet. Threats against gripe sites engaging in political speech proliferated due to overbroad trademark doctrines, which gained increasing acceptance during the 1990s. These doctrines equate commercial use with any conceivable effect on commerce, conflate an actionable likelihood of confusion with any mistakes by the careless or ignorant, and provide for summary revocation of domain names. Such lack of notice as to the legality of a gripe site will deter people from exercising their free speech rights of criticism and parody, resulting in chilling critical political and consumer commentary about trademark holders on the Internet.
However, political and consumer commentary are communications promoted by the ideals of a democratic society. Comment and critique about public issues are important to the maintenance of our free marketplace of ideas. Gripe sites are a new and developing form of such commentary, similar in purpose to a picket line for a demonstration. It is a matter of public interest that consumers are well informed about the choices they make, and the Internet provides a venue virtually unlimited in its scope of audience and capacity to inform.
The federal courts in U.S.A. have started to rein in these expansive trademark doctrines and to defend strongly the free speech rights of cybergripers to speak their minds. Courts are increasingly rejecting the notion that the analogy of trademarks as property is a sufficient basis for disregarding sensible limits on trademark rights. They are realizing that gripe sites cause little economic harm, and that no substantial economic benefit will be achieved by expanding trademark liability to the point where it can be used to threaten non-competitive and political speech.
Law and policymakers should start thinking about an appropriate balance between protecting commercial trademark interests and facilitating free speech interests in domain names. Developing mechanisms that facilitate free speech in the domain space is an important next step in the emerging framework for Internet regulation. There are enough U.S. cases and arbitral decisions on record for the major policy issues to be identified. It is time to start putting together the competing thoughts in this area to develop a clearer policy about permissible and impermissible uses of domain names that correspond to a trademark.
The creation of new and more balanced regulatory principles on the domestic and international levels between trademarks and free speech on the Internet may help in avoiding chilling critical commentary about trademark holders on the Internet. They would also potentially save money in Internet commerce by creating greater certainty as to competing interests in domain names and thus avoiding protracted and often costly litigation. Additionally, they would underscore the importance of free speech on the Internet as a guiding principle for future Internet regulation.

참고자료

· 없음