도메인이름은 사전심사 없이 선착순 방식(first come, first served)으로 등록되고, 최대한 등록자를 확보하려는 영리적 고려를 중심으로 관리가 이루어짐에 따라 타인의 상호, 상표를 도메인이름으로 무단 점유하는 형태가 통제되지 못하고 결과적으로 도메인이름 등록자와 해당 이름에 대한 기존의 표지권자 사이의 분쟁이 빈발하여 왔다. 도메인이름 분쟁과 관련하여 사이버스쿼팅(Cybersquatting)행위는 도메인이름에 대한 악의적인 투기행위로 사용을 통하여 이윤을 창출 할 의도가 없이 도메인이름을 등록하여 두었다가 후에 이를 양도함으로써 막대한 이익을 남길 목적으로 이루어지는 행위를 말한다. 사이버스쿼팅(Cybersquatting)행위의 분쟁해결을 위해 부정경쟁방지법에서 사이버스쿼팅 행위인 국내에 널리 인식된 타인의 성명, 상호, 상표 등에 관한 도메인이름 선점행위에 대한 규제요건(제2조 1호 아목)과 인터넷주소자원에관한법률상의 사이버스쿼팅 금지 규정(제12조)의 적용요건이 서로 상이하여 양 규정간의 관계 정립의 필요성이 논란이 되고 있다. 이를 해결하기 위하여 하나의 법률로 통일하는 방안과 양법규정을 병존하되 규제대상의 차이를 분명하게 구분하는 방안을 고려해 볼 수 있다.

Domain names are registered on a ‘first come, first-served basis’. There are no qualification standards, such as those to avoid confusing similarity that are required for trademark prosecution and examination for registration. Instead, domain name registrars simply accept applications unless the precise domain name sought is already registered to another owner. These circumstances can be contributed to so-called the cyber-squatting, the practice of acquiring domain names for ransom and resale to the original owners of similar marks. Currently, domain name disputes are regulated by the standards rules for domain name dispute resolution of the Internet Domain Name Act. At the same time, cyber squatting should be regulated by the Anti-unfair competition practice Act. Furthermore, those disputes in .kr types of domain names are regulated by the Conciliation Rules for the Domestic Domain Name Disputes. This article is to examine the differences among those statutory standards for domain name disputes, to discover the rationals of the differences and to provide desirable solutions for the conflicts of standards. Fortunately, the courts have never rejected the decisions by the Conciliation Committee; however, this does not direct to the conclusion that a uniform standards to be applied to both judicial system and the conciliation system has been established in the regime of domain name dispute resolution. Instead, the fact that not all the conciliation decisions are not reviewed by the court means that the rules and precedents have been being established by the application of the conciliation standards, apart from the statutory standards, which results in existence or fixation of the dual system in the regime of domain name disputes resolution. Therefore, dual system should not be accepted or recognised; there is no reason to be a dual standards in this regime, and a uniform statutory system should be established by a single legislation. At least, there is need for a legislation to make a clear line between the scopes of the subject matter in the application of the two standards.

Domain names are registered on a ‘first come, first-served basis’. There are no qualification standards, such as those to avoid confusing similarity that are required for trademark prosecution and examination for registration. Instead, domain name registrars simply accept applications unless the precise domain name sought is already registered to another owner. These circumstances can be contributed to so-called the cyber-squatting, the practice of acquiring domain names for ransom and resale to the original owners of similar marks. Currently, domain name disputes are regulated by the standards rules for domain name dispute resolution of the Internet Domain Name Act. At the same time, cyber squatting should be regulated by the Anti-unfair competition practice Act. Furthermore, those disputes in .kr types of domain names are regulated by the Conciliation Rules for the Domestic Domain Name Disputes. This article is to examine the differences among those statutory standards for domain name disputes, to discover the rationals of the differences and to provide desirable solutions for the conflicts of standards. Fortunately, the courts have never rejected the decisions by the Conciliation Committee; however, this does not direct to the conclusion that a uniform standards to be applied to both judicial system and the conciliation system has been established in the regime of domain name dispute resolution. Instead, the fact that not all the conciliation decisions are not reviewed by the court means that the rules and precedents have been being established by the application of the conciliation standards, apart from the statutory standards, which results in existence or fixation of the dual system in the regime of domain name disputes resolution. Therefore, dual system should not be accepted or recognised; there is no reason to be a dual standards in this regime, and a uniform statutory system should be established by a single legislation. At least, there is need for a legislation to make a clear line between the scopes of the subject matter in the application of the two standards.

internet domain name, cyber squatting, ICANN(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), UDRP(Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy)