[1] Whether the service mark "the writing body of Soloy in Seul" and the quoted service mark "the shape of the house £« the writing body of Hloyyn + the printing body of the Gard Court" are similar (affirmative)

[2] Whether the registration of a service mark may be prohibited or a registered service mark may be null and void in a case where consumers are not likely to mistake or confuse the service source in a specific and individual manner by taking into account the general transaction circumstances and the degree of awareness of the service mark even if the service mark appears similar (negative)

[1] The registered service mark is a mark marked in the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body and the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body.

[2] Even if both service marks are similar in terms of the appearance, name, and concept of the service mark itself in general, abstract, and uniform terms, in a case where consumers are not likely to mistake or confuse the service source specifically and individually considering the general transaction situation and the degree of awareness of the service mark surrounding the service business in question, comprehensively and comprehensively, in a trade society, in a case where there is no concern for consumers to mistake or confuse the service source specifically and individually, even if both service marks exist, the registration of the service mark in question does not hinder the protection of the pertinent service mark owner, consumers, and traders, and thus, the registered service mark cannot be deemed as null and void.

[1] Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) (see current Article 7 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act) / [2] Article 2 (2) and (5) (see current Article 2 (1) 2 and (3) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990), Article 9 (1) 7, 9, and 10 (see current Article 7 (1) 7, 9, and 10), Article 46 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 71 (1) 1) of the former Trademark Act (see current Article 71 (1) 1)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Hu1824 delivered on May 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2124), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu1846 delivered on July 9, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1627), Supreme Court Decision 99Hu567 delivered on August 20, 199 (Gong199Ha, 187), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu311 delivered on October 8, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2327), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2842 delivered on November 23, 199 (Gong200Sang, 54) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu19639 delivered on July 30, 199, 199 (Gong200Sang, 196Hu19639 delivered on September 16, 196)

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

Pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Fair Trade Act (Patent Attorney Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 98Heo9277 delivered on September 10, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the registered service mark of this case is the mark on which "Hloday" is marked in written body, and the cited service mark is the figure on which "Hlodayn" is marked in written body, and the figure on which "Hlodayn" is marked in written body, and the part on which "Hlodayn" is marked in written body, and it is marked in written form, and the registered service mark of this case is marked in three parts. Since the registered service mark of this case is in large number of total sounds and each part is not closely indivisible, the registered service mark of this case is simply a simple name and concept that ordinary consumers or traders can become a trademark or service mark, so the registered service mark of this case can be separated and concepted only by "Hloday" or "Hlodayn", and the cited service mark can not be separated by the concept of "the new service mark or service mark of this case," and it is also a combination of the two parts which can not be separated by the concept of "Hloday" and the new service mark of this case.

In light of the records, the above recognition and determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of service marks, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal disputing this issue is not acceptable.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held as follows: the plaintiff's assertion that since the registered service mark of this case is widely distinguishable from the cited service mark because it has been used for 20 years as an ombudsman, the registered service mark of this case can be easily distinguishable from the cited service mark; although both service marks are similar to each other in general, abstract, and uniform terms in terms of the appearance, name, and concept of the service mark itself, if consumers are not likely to be mistaken or confused with the service source specifically and individually considering the general transaction situation surrounding the pertinent service business and the degree of awareness of the pertinent service mark as a whole in the transaction society, it does not hinder the protection of the pertinent service mark owner, consumers, and customers, even if the two service marks exist, and thus it does not interfere with the registration of the pertinent service mark or the registered service mark cannot be deemed as null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Hu153, 96Hu191, Sept. 24, 196).

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be viewed differently from the Plaintiff’s appearance of materials attached to the appellate brief. Thus, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the well-known service mark as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal in the judgment below. We cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this point.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the records, as pointed out in the court below, the defendant's legal representative was delegated to the lawsuit by the non-party's hotel hotel nb, Corp, and the non-party's name, and submitted a reply and a preparatory document under the defendant's name. However, on July 28, 1999, it can be known that the defendant legally delegated the lawsuit from the defendant on July 28, 199 and confirmed the previous litigation at the sixth legal date. Thus, it is clear that the defect in the attorney's right of attorney was cured. The ground of appeal as to this point also cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)