2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On December 17, 2002, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s registered trademark of this case is similar to the comparative service mark used by the Plaintiff, which is the comparative service mark, and the designated goods are similar to the designated service business of comparative service mark, and that the registration should be invalidated pursuant to Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act. However, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board requested a registration invalidation trial on the instant registered trademark. However, after deliberating on it as the case No. 2003Da3258, Sept. 22, 2003, the Plaintiff rendered a trial decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on the purport that the designated service business of the similar service mark is not similar to the comparative service mark.

B. Details of the similar service mark with the registered trademark of this case

(1) The registered trademark of this case

(1) Composition:

(2) Registration number: No. 491351

(3) Date of application/decision of registration/date of registration: February 12, 200/ February 9, 2001/ April 11, 2001

(4) Right holder: Defendant

(5) Designated service business: Artificial stone, non-metallic plateer, non-metallic agents, windows of non-metallic materials, non-metallic materials, base materials of non-metallic materials, base materials of non-metallic materials, wall boards, base materials of non-metallic materials, base materials of non-metallic materials, base materials of ceiling, food stuffs, base materials of non-metallic materials, sludge in a non-metallic materials creative system, plastics locks (category 19 classification of goods).

(2) Comparison service mark

(1) Composition:

(2) Registration number: No. 42416.

(3) Date of application/registration: August 5, 1996/ June 1, 1998

(4) Right holder: plaintiff

(5) Designated service business: Condominium building business, officetels building business, office building business, commercial building construction business, commercial building engineering business, housing construction business, tenement house building business, apartment building business, apartment building business, Arabic building business (Classification of service business of the former category 104).

[Evidence] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the trial decision

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant registered trademark is identical or similar to the comparative service mark, and its designated goods are similar to the designated service business of comparative service mark, and thus, the instant registered trademark falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

(2) The designated goods of the instant registered trademark are very closely related to the designated service business of comparative service marks, and the comparative service marks are widely known or recognized as the Plaintiff’s service mark in relation to the building business. Thus, the instant registered trademark falls under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the trademark and service mark are similar

The registered trademark of this case consists of the English combination of “LGTRAUM”, and comparative service marks consisting of Korean and English persons as “”, and both of the registered trademark of this case and the similar service marks are “TRUM,” and both marks are identical in the name of this part, and both marks are identical to “TRUM,” and the English persons of both marks are identical and similar to “TGUM,” and the two marks are, ultimately, similar trademarks are identical and similar to each other when the names and concepts are comprehensively, separately, and objectively observed.

(2) Whether Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act is applicable

(A) The trademark itself is a mark to identify the source of service and its function is different, so it shall not be widely recognized as identical or similar to the goods and services. Accordingly, the same or similar nature between the goods and services shall not be widely recognized in light of the general relation between the goods and the goods, whether the goods are manufactured and sold, and the provision of the services is made by the same business operator, whether it is natural for the general public to think as such, whether the use of the goods and services is consistent with the purpose of the goods and services, whether the use of the similar mark is consistent with the scope of the consumers, and whether the use of the similar mark is likely to cause confusion as to the source, and it shall be recognized in accordance with the common sense of the trading society. Accordingly, it shall be viewed as to the same or similar nature of the designated service business of the designated service mark compared to

(4) The designated goods of the registered trademark of this case are non-metallic materials such as building stones, non-metallic metal plates, non-metallic flooring materials, non-metallic ceiling plates, non-metallic materials, base fixtures, base metal windows, and plastic metal windows (the No. 19 category classification of goods). The comparative service mark is designated as a "building building construction business, officetel building construction, commercial building construction, apartment building construction, apartment building construction, apartment building construction, and ice construction business (the category of service business is not closely related to building materials and it is not closely related to building materials by the general consumers. Thus, considering that the building materials and building business are not identical to the building materials' sales business, it is not closely related to building materials' building materials' sales business, and it is not possible to recognize that the building materials' sales business is identical to the building materials' sales business to the building materials' general consumers and it is not identical to the building materials' sales business' sales business under social norms, but it is not possible to recognize that the building materials' sales business is identical to the building materials' sales business.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the construction business, which is the designated service business of the similar service mark, is the same or similar type of business as the designated goods of the registered trademark of this case, constitutes Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act is without merit.

(3) Whether Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act is applicable

(A) In order to constitute “a trademark that is likely to mislead consumers” under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act, even if the comparative trademark does not reach the well-known and well-known state, it should be known to the extent that consumers or traders can recognize it as a specific person’s goods or trademark if it is at least in general trade in Korea (see Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1131, May 13, 1994, etc.). The determination should be based on the time of the decision to register the trademark of this case. First, whether the comparative service mark was known to the extent that it could be recognizable as a service mark of a specific person as a service mark at the time of the decision to register the trademark of this case.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 8, 9, Gap evidence 10, 11-1, 2, Eul evidence 12-1 through 14, 31 through 40, Gap evidence 13 through 17-1, and 2, the plaintiff established a company called a substitute house around March 1991 and used a comparative service mark to establish a company, and "Latch I" in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seocho-gu, 1992 (total purchase price of KRW 21,312, 928,00), "No. 16 households" (total purchase price of KRW 40,028, 874, 495 won) and "No. 29 of the registered service marks of this case" were published in the same Dong-dong in 196, and "No. 30 of the registered service marks of this case" through "No. 40 of the registered service marks of this case and No. 1965 of the registered service marks of this case from 1999.

However, it cannot be deemed that the comparative service mark is widely known service mark to the extent that it can be perceived as a specific person’s mark in relation to the building business to domestic consumers as of February 9, 2001, the date when the registration of the trademark of this case was decided by the Plaintiff on February 9, 2001, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff engaged in the building business, and (b) the Plaintiff constructed the apartment house called “Thovah” only in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul; and (c) several articles on the high selling price and up-to-date facilities of the above apartment house several times and the fact that advertisements were placed in five weeks around September 27,

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the comparative service mark falls under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act on the premise that it is recognized as a specific person’s mark in relation to the building business at the time of the decision to register the trademark of this case is without merit.

(5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the decision of this case, which concluded that the registered trademark of this case is not registered in violation of Article 7 (1) 7 and 11 of the Trademark Act, is justifiable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)