According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below held that the registered loan certificates in this case are "Lib S" used by a person who operates a business of providing services for others to distinguish them from his business of using services for others, whereas the cited trademarks are "trademarks" used by a person who produces, manufactures, processes, certifies, or sells goods as a business of manufacturing, processing, or sells goods to distinguish them from those of others, and the designated loan certificates in the system are different from each other. The designated loan certificates in the registered loan certificates are pure service businesses that introduce the sale, manufacture, etc. of electronic goods after receiving brokerage fees, etc., and their trading partners are mainly not general consumers, such as electronic and electronic equipment exporters, importers, manufacturers, distributors, etc., and since they do not carry the forms of transaction, such as the transfer, acquisition, etc. of goods directly, it is difficult to indicate the relevant goods as the actual circumstances of the trading society, and thus, the registered loan marks and the cited trademarks are not likely to mislead or confuse with the registered loan certificates in this case where the consumers are different from the registered business partners or consumers.

However, with respect to services related to goods, if ordinary consumers use a mark identical or similar to the mark used on any goods for services closely related to the goods, it may cause confusion with the source of services as if the service provider is the same as the manufacturer and seller of the goods. In particular, in light of the actual circumstances of the society of transactions, if the provision of services and the manufacture and sale of the goods are carried out by the same manufacturer and seller, and if there is a tendency to think as such, there are more concerns about such confusion. Therefore, the registration of the services list shall be rejected in accordance with the purport of Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 190; hereinafter the same shall apply) and once it is decided that the service manufacturer and importer will not be able to mislead the manufacturer and importer of the services with the same kind of goods as that of the goods, and in light of the fact that the service manufacturer and importer will not be able to register the services related to the goods of the same kind, such as the sale and sale of the goods of the services.

The court below's decision that the designated language service business of the registered language service marks and the designated goods of the cited trademarks are not likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the source is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles of Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the similarity of goods and the services of the same kind. Therefore, the issue of this point is with merit.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)