도메인이름 이전등록에 따른 부당이득의 준거법과 국제사법 제31조의 개정의 필요성

The National Arbitration Forum ordered a Korean plaintiff owning "hpweb.com"to transfer the domain name to defendant Hewlett-Packard, which had its main office in California, even though the domain name was registered in Virginia. The Supreme Court had ruled that California state law applied to the unjust enrichment claim due to the location of the defendant’s main office. The court did not state why the location of the defendant’s main office was where unjust enrichment took place. This article discusses where unjust enrichment occurs when a domain name is transferred. For this discussion, the legal character of the domain name is considered, specifically whether a domain name is intellectual property or a contractual right. However, attempting to determine where unjust enrichment occurs offers little guidance with regard to a domain name transfer. Ultimately, I cast doubt on the rationale of Article 31 of Private International Law, which provides that the law where the unjust enrichment occurs shall be the governing law. Article 31 creates a complication in determining the governing law of unjust enrichment by distinguishing between the governing law of the unjust enrichment and the governing law of the cause of the unjust enrichment. As a result, it is recommended that Article 31 be revised.