(a) Whether a registered service mark "mutual savings and finance company" and "a cited service mark" are similar thereto;

(b) The case holding that the registration of a registered service mark is null and void on the ground that it may cause consumers to confuse consumers with the service business of an unregistered service mark which is remarkably recognized by consumers;

A. With respect to the similarity of registered service marks “Saried Mutual Savings and Finance Company” and “Saried Service Bank”, the part of the registered service marks “mutual savings and finance company” among the constituent parts of the registered service marks indicate the type of service business, and the part “(main)” indicates the form of a legal entity, which is an abbreviationd name of a stock company, and its essential part has no distinguishability, and in the case of the cited service marks, the part “(main)” and “banks” are deemed as having no distinctive character, and both service marks are similar to the other parts.

(b) The case holding that the registration of a registered service mark is null and void on the ground that the designated service business of the registered service mark is likely to cause consumers to confuse consumers with the service business of the unregistered service mark which is remarkably recognized by consumers;

Articles 9(1)11, 46 subparag. 1, and 71(1) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990; see Articles 7(1)11, and 71(1) of the current Trademark Act)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on August 1, 200

Cho Ho-Hy Mutual Savings Bank

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92 No. 92 dated November 30, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, with respect to the similarity of the registered service mark (application No. 1989.9.23, registration No. 12378, Oct. 5, 1990; hereinafter "registered service mark of this case") of claimant and claimant's non-registered service mark (hereinafter "personal service mark"), the "mutual savings and finance company" in the constituent part of the registered service mark of this case indicates the type of service business. The "the main part" indicates the form of corporation as its abbreviation, and its main part is without distinguishability. The part "(State)" and "bank" in the cited service mark is "non-distinctive interest", and its main part is "non-distinctiveness," and both service marks are identical to the main service mark of claimant No. 12378, Oct. 1, 1990. 12, 199) and the non-registered service mark of claimant No. 12378.

In light of the records, we affirm and accept the judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or omission of judgment, such as theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for argument.

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 on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)