[1] Where another service mark identical or similar to a registered service mark falls under Article 26 subparagraph 3 of the former Trademark Act, whether the effect of the registered service mark affects the similar service mark (negative)

[2] Whether Article 26 subparagraph 3 of the former Trademark Act is excluded in a case where a conspicuous geographical name, etc. is combined with a non-distinctive mark, a business type mark, or a technical (technical) mark, etc. without distinctiveness (negative with qualification)

[3] In a case where a service mark similar to a registered service mark is devised differently from a method of common use of a conspicuous geographical name and a mark for official use, or is combined with another letter or figure, whether the registered service mark has the effect of the registered service mark (negative with qualification)

[4] The registered service mark "(ju) Korea's SOREA REEARCHCO. LTPP" has the effect (A) service mark

Whether “Korea Job Center Korea Resarcer Ltd. + KRC” (negative)

[1] The purport of Article 26 subparagraph 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) provides that trademark rights shall not be effective with respect to a trademark used commonly for goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark, and a trademark consisting of a conspicuous geographical name, etc., with no special distinction or distinctive character, is to guarantee the free use by the general public, and the legislative purport of Article 8 (1) 2 and 4 of the same Act, which are the provision on the grounds for non-registration, and its legislative purport is to be consistent with the above provision. However, Article 26 of the same Act does not apply to a similar trademark requirements for free use without the effect of prohibiting the scope of trademark rights, but also to a service mark under Article 2 (5) of the same Act, so if other registered service marks identical or similar to the registered service marks fall under subparagraph 3 of Article 26 of the same Act, regardless of the existence or absence of the registered service marks or the reason for invalidation of the registered service marks.

[2] Article 26 subparagraph 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) does not apply only to a mark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name, the abbreviation thereof or a map, and even in cases where a conspicuous geographical name, etc. is combined with an in-service mark or an in-service mark or a technical (technical) mark with no distinctive character, even if the word constituting a trademark through the combination is not a new concept beyond the original conspicuous geographical name, the mere fact that the trademark consisting of an in-service mark or an in-service mark or a trademark consisting of a in-service mark and an in-service mark, etc. cannot be deemed excluded from the application of Article 26 subparagraph 3 of the same Act.

[3] Article 26 subparag. 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) does not limit a mark which is indicated in a common way as a trademark, unlike Article 26 subparag. 1 and 2 of the same Act. Thus, even if a service mark similar to a registered service mark is devised differently from a conspicuous geographical name and a mark in a common way, or is combined with other letters or diagrams, the part proposed or additionally combined with the registered service mark is not leading to general attention, and thus, if the part proposed or additionally combined with the registered service mark constitutes an integral whole of the registered service mark by absorbing it into a geographical name or an official mark or its combined trademark, it shall be deemed that the service mark constitutes a service mark under Article 26 subparag. 3 of the former Trademark Act, and thus, it shall not affect the registered service mark.

[4] (A) service mark "Korea Resarcer Ltd. £« KRC" is a registered service mark

(1)Korea’s service marks consisting of service marks with similar titles, names, and concepts: (a)

Of the service marks, "Korea" or "REA" constitutes a conspicuous geographical name, and RESACH is merely a mark used in the current industry, such as market research consignment business or market development business, which is the designated service business of the registered service mark, 'Center' or 'CENER', 'Ltd', which is an English weak of a corporation, is a combination of the word 'Korea' and its surrounding 'KCRC', which is somewhat somewhat undistinctive, 'Korea' and 'Korea', but 'Korea' cannot be easily viewed as a new service mark as being used with 'Korea' or 'Korea', and 'K' cannot be seen as a new service mark 'the same or similar service mark' as 'Korea', 'K', which is a combination of 'Korea' and 'Korea', and 'Korea', 'K', which is a new service mark 'Korea' and 'Korea', since 'K' cannot be seen as a new service mark 'the same or similar service mark ' as '.

[1] Article 26 subparag. 3 (see current Article 51 subparag. 3) of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990) / [2] Article 26 subparag. 3 (see current Article 51 subparag. 3) of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990) / [3] Article 26 subparag. 3 (see current Article 51 subparag. 3) of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990) / [4] Article 26 subparag. 3 (see current Article 51 subparag. 3) of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990)

[1] [2/3/4] Supreme Court Decision 94Da2213 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2803) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 80Da548 delivered on March 10, 1981 (Gong1981, 13791), Supreme Court Decision 83Hu69 delivered on January 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 374) / [2/3/4] Supreme Court Decision 92Hu452 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong193, 114), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1296 delivered on February 13, 196 (Gong196, 1969) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 83Hu1969 delivered on June 19, 196 (Gong196, 1989)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Korea Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Jong-sub et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellee] Korea Liuri (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Patent Court Decision 98Heo3460 delivered on June 19, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The purport of Article 26 subparagraph 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990), which provides that trademark rights shall not be effective with respect to a trademark used commonly for goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark and a trademark consisting of a conspicuous geographical name, etc., is to guarantee the free use by the general public, and the legislative purport of Article 8 (1) 2 and 4 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) is to guarantee the free use of a mark with no special distinction or non-distinctive character, or a mark consisting of a conspicuous geographical name, etc., and the legislative purport of which is to be consistent with Article 8 (1) 2 and 4 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990). The above provision is equally applicable to service marks under Article 26 (5) of the former Trademark Act.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the registration cannot be invalidated in the judgment on the case of a registration invalidation trial against the registered service mark of this case, which points out the arguments of the registered service mark of this case, shall not be considered in determining whether the registered service mark of this case (A) affects the validity of the registered service mark right. Thus, each argument in the grounds of appeal on this issue is without merit without any need to further examine (the purport of the judgment of the Supreme Court 91Hu318 delivered on December 10, 1991, which held that the registered service mark of this case is a registered service mark of this case.)

The defendant, who is registered as a combined service mark of "One State HNK RESARCH", the basic service mark of which is the defendant, although it is registered as a combined service mark

Even if the trade name and title are different, it alone cannot be said that the registered service mark of this case would disrupt the public order and cause misconception and confusion of sources, and thus, consumers may only be raised. In order to assert the invalidation of the registration, it is necessary to submit as evidence prior-registered service marks similar to the registered service mark of this case, or well-known and well-known service marks, etc., and it is not appropriate to invoke in this case, since it is not determined whether the registered service mark of this case has a special distinction or whether the registered service mark of this case has an effect prohibiting the use of the mark of this case (a) of this case.

2. In order to determine which particular distinction exists, a component of a trademark shall be removed, but it shall not be deemed as one of its constituent parts, and it shall be determined as to whether there is a special distinction between a trademark and a conspicuous geographical name, so long as the application for trademark is not itself, but rather a conspicuous geographical name, its external appearance and concept, etc. However, Article 26 subparag. 3 of the former Trademark Act does not apply only to a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name, its abbreviation or common mark, but also to a trademark consisting of a non-distinctive or technical mark with a conspicuous geographical name, or a trademark consisting of a non-distinctive or non-distinctive character, or a trademark consisting of a non-distinctive character or a non-distinctive character, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the trademark constitutes an integral geographical name, a non-distinctive mark, or a new concept beyond the original geographical name or a new service mark, and thus, it shall not be deemed that Article 26 subparag. 29-196 of the former Trademark Act is not applied after being declared 97.

The court below held that the service mark (A) of this case is a registered service mark of this case.

v. “(States) KOREASARCH REEARCH CO. LTD’s name and title; and

Although the concept of "Korea" or "Korea REA" among the service marks that are similar to the above service marks falls under a conspicuous geographical name, "RESACH" is merely a mark used in the current business, such as market research consignment business or market research business, which is the designated service mark, or "Center" or "CETRD, which is only a mark widely used in the trade name or service mark of the general company," and "Ltd" which is somewhat weak in the English service of the corporation, is a combination of the word "KCRC" and its surrounding service mark's new service mark's name or service mark's new service mark's name or service mark's new service mark's "non-distinctiveness" cannot be seen as being easily used with "Korea" or "Korea's new service mark's new service mark's name or service mark'. Therefore, it cannot be seen as a "Korea's new service mark's name or service mark', which is a combination of new service mark's name or new service mark'.

3. 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 Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)