The case holding that since the registered service mark “” and the challenged mark “” are similar to the registered service mark “” and the designated service business, the challenged mark falls under the scope of rights of the registered service mark.

The case holding that since the part of the registered service mark “” and the part other than the part of the mark subject to confirmation “ “,” which directly expresses the nature of the service business, and there is no completely distinctive character, the part is recognized as the origin indication of the service business rather than the consumer simply expresses the nature of the service business, the part of the text of the two marks is the essential part of the “date,” which is relatively highly distinctive, and its essential part is the same, the two marks are similar, and the designated service business of both are similar, and thus the mark subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right of the registered service mark.

Articles 7(1)7 and 75 of the Trademark Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Patent Attorney Kim Byung-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Song Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

March 16, 2007

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 29, 2006 on the case No. 2005Da3187 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the trial decision;

A. Registered service mark of this case

(1) Date of application/registration date/registration number: April 14, 1995/ January 14, 1997/34201

(2) Composition: “ ”

(3) Designated service business: “The specialized business of swine spawn, the specialized business of spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn swn spawn s

(4) Right holder: Defendant;

(b) a challenged mark;

(1) Composition: “ ”

(b) Service business: Simplified restaurant business, tourist restaurant business, plastic restaurant business, accelerator service restaurant business, accelerator service restaurant business, restaurant chain business, food introduction business, food cooking agency business, food preparation service business, single food shop business, temporary shop business, resting shop business, spacife specialized store business, Bospaci specialized store business, potaba specialized store business, potaba and specialized store business; and

C. Details of the instant trial decision

On December 30, 2005, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for a trial to confirm the scope of rights of the instant registered service mark. The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the Plaintiffs’ petition on the ground that “The instant registered service mark and the mark subject to confirmation, which are used by the Plaintiffs, are identical with the name and concept, and are similar to the designated service business,” and thus, the instant trial decision was rendered on September 29, 2006.

[Evidence: No dispute is raised】

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs recognize that the part of the registered service mark of this case and the mark subject to confirmation, which are common to the registered service mark of this case, are "the highest and math", and have no distinctive character as a mark used by many people, and it is not reasonable for the public interest to allow a specific person to monopoly. The "Gang" part of the mark subject to confirmation falls under the mark of nature as the mark "Isle or many people", and the remaining part of the letter, "sleak, potass, potass, mali" and "Isle" are merely those with a common use of the name of the item handled in the designated service business, and thus, there is no distinctive character. Accordingly, in comparison with the figure of both marks, only the figure of the registered service mark of this case may be an essential part, and the part of the figure of the registered service mark of this case, "Isle or masle in flag", and it seems that it seems that there is a little difference in the new service mark of this case and the new service mark of this case, "Is or sle in the new service mark of this case."

Therefore, since both marks are not similar to diagrams, there is no possibility of misconception and confusion as a whole.

B. Determination as to the similarity of marks

(1) Criteria for determination

Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined by the overall, objective, and apart from the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods, and whether there is concern for misconception or confusion as to the origin of the trademark by ordinary consumers or traders on the basis of an in-house perception that they feel the trademark. The possibility of misconception or confusion shall be determined by taking into account the trade circumstances of each designated goods, and unless there are special circumstances to deem that the designated goods fall under special goods that are demanded or traded only by the relevant experts, etc., the determination shall be based on the average attention of ordinary consumers. The combined trademark that combines each constituent element of letters, letters, or diagrams shall not necessarily be called and conceptualized by the entire constituent part, but shall be deemed natural in the trade (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da294977, Feb. 9, 1999). If it is deemed that the combined trademark is similar to one another’s trademark as a whole, it shall be deemed that the combined trademark is identical to 97Da1974, supra.

(2) Determination:

The registered service mark of this case and the marks subject to confirmation are all combined with letters and diagrams, and the registered service mark of this case is combined with the figure "I sking" and "I skings" and "I skings" and "I skings" of upper and lower half on the right side of the body, and the marks subject to confirmation are combined with the figure "I sking" and "I sking" (which combines diagrams as "the same, but does not lose the function as letters"), "I sking" (which are merely combined with figures, but does not lose the function as letters"), "I sking", and "I sking" are combined.

Since it is difficult to view that both shapes and letters of marks are indivisiblely combined to the extent that they cannot be seen natural in the transaction when separately observing them, the parts of figures and letters can be compared separately from the parts of figures and letters.

먼저, 양 표장의 문자 부분을 살펴보면, 이 사건 등록서비스표의 ‘왕족발’, ‘감자탕’과 확인대상표장의 ‘족발’, ‘보쌈’, ‘감자탕’은 모두 지정서비스업에서 제공하는 음식을 보통으로 사용하는 방법으로 표시한 것으로서 식별력이 없고, 확인대상표장의 ‘왕’ 부분 역시 ‘족발’ 또는 ‘보쌈’과 결합하여 음식의 성질을 표시하는 것으로서 식별력이 없다. 이에 반하여 ‘제일’ 부분은, ‘제일, 순서상 첫째, 으뜸’이라는 의미{‘제일’이라는 단어는 이외에도, 자기 자신이 하지 않으면 안되는 일, 제일(제일, 제삿날), 제일(제일, 음양가에서, 사람의 성(성)에 따라 길하다고 하는 날), 제일(제일, 섣달 그믐), 제일(제일, 똑같이 가지런함) 등의 의미도 있으나 수요자들은 주로 ‘순서상 첫째, 으뜸’으로 직감할 것이다}로서 지정서비스업의 우수성에 대하여 어느 정도 암시하고 있으나, ① ‘제일’이라는 문자는 사람의 이름으로도 사용되고, 거래계에서 특정한 상품 또는 업종을 표시하는 단어와 함께 다양한 업종과 관련하여 특정인의 상표 또는 서비스표로서 등록·사용되고 있는 점(갑 제3호증, 을 제5호증), ② ‘제일’이라는 문자가 일반적인 품질의 우수성을 나타낼 때에는 단지 ‘제일’이라는 단어만을 단독으로 사용하는 것이 아니라 ‘제일 맛있는’, ‘제일 품질 좋은’, ‘제일 기분 좋은’, ‘제일 서비스가 좋은’ 등의 예와 같이 다른 성질표시적 형용사와 함께 사용되어 왔기에(경험칙), 위 양 표장에 있어서 ‘제일’ 부분은 서비스업의 성질을 ‘보통으로 사용하는 방법으로 표시’한 것이라고 보기 어려운 점, ③ 결합상표에 있어서 각 구성 부분의 식별력의 유무 내지 강약은 단독으로 상표를 구성할 경우와 달리 다른 부분의 식별력 유무 내지 강약에 의하여 영향을 받을 수 있는바, 이 사건 등록서비스표와 확인대상표장의 ‘제일’을 제외한 나머지 부분은 모두 직접적으로 서비스업의 성질을 표시하는 것으로서 전혀 식별력을 지니지 않음에 비하여, ‘제일’ 부분은 위 ①·②와 같은 이유로 어느 정도 식별력을 인정할 수 있어, 전체 문자 부분 중 상대적으로 강한 식별력을 발휘하는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 등록서비스표와 확인대상표장을 접하는 수요자들은 ‘제일’ 부분이 단순히 서비스업의 성질을 표하는 것으로 인식하기보다는 서비스업의 출처표시로서 인식할 것으로 보는 것이 옳다. 따라서 양 표장의 문자 부분은 모두 상대적으로 식별력이 강한 ‘제일’ 부분이 요부라고 할 수 있고, 그 요부가 동일하므로 양 표장은 서로 유사한 표장이라 할 것이다.

C. Determination on the similarity of designated service business

The service business of this case’s registered service mark’s designated service business of the instant registered service mark is identical or similar to “spawn-specialized business of swine spawn spawn spawn, spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn business,” and “spawn satn

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the registered service mark of this case and the mark subject to confirmation are similar, and the designated service business is also identical or similar, so the mark subject to confirmation belongs to the scope of the right of the registered service mark of this case. Accordingly, the decision of this case, which dismissed the plaintiffs' request for adjudication, is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Sung-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)