The requirements and the method of hearing for the application to fall under the questionnaire where the service mark is likely to deceive the consumers under Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990);

In order to fall under the service list that is likely to deceive consumers under Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990), the cited service list is required to be recognized to a certain extent for domestic consumers even if the cited service mark is not domestically famous. Thus, in applying the above provision, if the service mark is used for the designated service, it shall be examined first to determine that the cited service mark is a service mark that is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the source of the service by ordinary consumers, as it is related to the business of the holder of the right to use the cited service mark, or to the extent that the cited service mark is recognizable to the domestic consumers.

Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 156 (Gong1987,648) (Gong1991, 480) (Gong1991, 480) and 90Hu311, Jan. 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 749)

Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90 Ba111 dated March 14, 1991

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the English portion of this application is composed of the English portion in the same English as the cited language service table, and the Korean portion of this application language service is merely the same as the English name of the English applicant, and even in the case of the designated language service, the designated language service of this application language service is identical with the cited language service table and its name, and in the case of the designated language service, the designated language service of this application language service, the travel service of this application language service, which is a travel service, is closely related to the hotel business, which is the designated language service of the cited language service table, shall be deemed to have a special relation with the business of the ordinary consumers, and thus, it is justified in the judgment that this application is not registered under Article 9 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act.

However, the court below should first examine the degree of recognition for domestic consumers, in order to determine that the letter of application for the letter of application falls under the letter of application under the letter of application under Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 190), since the letter of application is required to be recognized to a certain extent even if the letter of application is not well-known domestically. Thus, the court below should apply Article 9 (1) 11 of the above Act, and if the letter of application is used for the designated letter of application for the letter of application of Article 9 (1) 11 of the above Act, it is deemed that there is a special relation with the business of the holder of the letter of application for the letter of application for the letter of application for the letter of application for the letter of application for the letter of application for the letter of application for the letter of application to the extent that the ordinary consumers are likely to mislead or confuse the source of the letter of application.

However, the original adjudication did not have any deliberation on this point, and it was determined that the court below's ruling cannot be registered on the ground that the court below's ruling constitutes Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act on the ground that the court below's ruling was similar to the letter letter letter and its title, and that it was closely related to the designated letter-based business, and that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the former Trademark Act or failing to exhaust all deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the trial ruling, and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss this point.

Therefore, the decision on the remaining grounds of appeal is omitted and the original decision is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)