The case holding that even if the designated service business is used for the same or similar designated service business due to the difference between name and non-title, it does not constitute a similar service mark since ordinary consumers or traders are unlikely to cause confusion as to the source of the service business, even if it is used for the same or similar designated service business due to the difference between name and non-title, it does not constitute a similar service mark.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Song Man-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2008Heo6604 Decided November 5, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined depending on whether a general consumer or a trader may cause confusion as to the origin of a product by comprehensively observing, objectively and objectively, and objectively, the impression, memory, and relationship that a trademark used in the same or similar product gives to a general consumer or a trader by means of its appearance, name, and concept, etc. Furthermore, a trademark combining letters and letters is not always named, concept, but can be briefly named, and conceptualized by the essential part of the constituent part, although it is limited to cases where it is natural and natural to separately observe each constituent part, and it is not natural in the trade, or has an independent meaning in combination of letters and letters (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Hu647, Jan. 12, 195; 9Hu238, Jul. 23, 1999).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the applied service mark of this case (No. 206-29325) is often combined with the designated service business such as a simple restaurant business, tourist restaurant business, membership accommodation business, theater business, and content rental business. The registered service mark (registration No. 50408) consists of the designated service business as an “electronic entertainment room business, membership accommodation business, and complete sale business” and is composed of “satise” and “satise” as it is easily composed of two word “satis” and “satise” and “satise” as a whole without being separated from the designated service business, so it can be said that the designated service mark is a relatively short of the term “satise” or “satise” and is used as a whole without being separated from the designated service mark from the designated service business as an “satise” or “satise” and thus, it can be said that it is not an “satise” as an “satise” and is not an “satise” as an independent business.

Therefore, in principle, the pending service mark and the pre-registered service mark of this case should be observed as a whole. Although both service marks are common in their concepts, even if they are used in the same or similar designated service business as well as different names, even if they are used in the same or similar designated service business due to a remarkable difference in appearance, they are not likely to cause confusion as to the source of service business. Thus, both service marks cannot be deemed as similar service marks.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the applied service mark of this case is not similar to the prior registered service mark, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment of distinctiveness or similarity of service mark as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)