[1] Whether a part of the composition of a service mark seems to suggest or emphasize the quality, provision of goods, method of provision, etc. of the designated service business, if ordinary consumers or traders cannot recognize it immediately (affirmative)

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which held that, in case where Gap entitled to a service mark "" of the earlier application service mark " " " " applied for a registration invalidation trial against Eul of the registered service mark Eul of the registered service mark " " " ", the registered service mark is identical or similar to the earlier application service mark and the mark and the designated service business are identical or similar to the registered service mark " "," and where the registered service mark has distinctiveness and is simplifiedly named and conceptualized as "high salary," the registered service mark is identical to the earlier application service mark and its appearance and concept are similar

[1] Articles 2(3), 7(1)7, and 8(1) of the Trademark Act / [2] Articles 2(3), 7(1)7, and 8(1) of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu674 Decided December 8, 2006

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2012Heo4544 Decided October 18, 2012

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Even if a part of a service mark appears to suggest or emphasize the quality, provision, method, etc. of the designated service, if ordinary consumers or traders cannot immediately recognize that the quality, provision, provision, provision method, etc. of the designated service cannot be denied without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu674, Dec. 8, 2006, etc.).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

2. The court below determined as follows: (a) the registered service mark of this case (service mark No. 226228 of the service mark No. 22628 of the registered service mark No. 22628 of the registered service mark No. 22628 of the registered service mark No. 1 of this case has various meanings, such as “(i) solid string: a method of containing booming boomer’s boomer’s booming,” “2 high strings: 3 high strings: 3 high strings: 4: 4. 4. 3. 4. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ..... .... ...... ...... 2 of this case of the registered service mark of this case as the designated service mark of this case was similar to the designated service mark of this case. . . . .. .... ... . . .... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of service marks, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. Furthermore, as long as the judgment of the court below is just, it is unnecessary to determine the assertion in the grounds of appeal on the premise that the registered service mark of this case does not fall under the grounds of invalidation under Article 8 (1) of the Trademark

3. 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 Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)