[1] Whether a designated service business is similar to a building sales business, department store management business, real estate appraisal business, and real estate brokerage business (affirmative), and whether a designated service business is similar to a "written publication business" and a "designated goods book" (affirmative)

[2] Whether registered service mark "21st century consulting corporation and cited mark "CENTUR 21" are similar (affirmative)

[3] Whether the mark "21st century" has distinctiveness (affirmative)

[1] Considering the contents and place of service business and the scope of consumers' transaction circumstances, "building sale business, licensed real estate agent business, department store management business, real estate appraisal business, real estate management business, real estate leasing business, office rent business, market management business, apartment house lease business, apartment housing management business, housing management business, housing brokerage business, house brokerage business, and house brokerage business are similar to "real estate brokerage business," which is the designated service business of the quoted service mark, and in general, "book", which is the designated goods of the quoted trademark, is closely related to the letter publishing business and the transaction common sense, is similar to "written publication business of the category 41, which is the designated goods of the registered service mark."

[2] As the letter portion of the registered service mark "21st century" indicates the type of company "stock company" and "consultation" indicates the type of business and has no or weak distinctiveness, the registered service mark is named and conceptualized as "21st century", while the "CENTURY" constitutes the word "CENTUY 21st century" as the word "21st century" with the meaning of "21st century and 100 years, and ordinary consumers are the cited mark "CENTUY 21st century". Thus, the registered service mark and the cited mark are different from the appearance and name, but they are extremely similar to the concept, so if they are used for the service business, etc. that identical or similar to the two marks, it is likely to mislead and confuse the source as ordinary consumers.

[3] Although the mark "21st century" has a future-oriented and positive meaning and the trader wishes to use it as a service mark in various types of business, such fact alone does not constitute a registered service mark "building sale business, department store management business, real estate appraisal business, etc." or a non-distinctive mark.

[1] Articles 7(1)7, 10, and 71(1)1 of the Trademark Act; Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act / [3] Articles 6(1)3, 51, and 71(1)1 of the Trademark Act / [3] Articles 6(1)3, 71(1)1 of the Trademark Act

206.206

For the purpose of this Act, the term “the term “the term “the term” means the term “the term” means the term “the term” means “the term” means the term “the term “the term” means

Patent Court Decision 2001Heo270 delivered on July 6, 2001

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

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below determined that, based on its employment evidence, considering the circumstances of the transaction, such as the contents and place of service business and the scope of consumers, the ‘written' of the cited trademark is similar to the ‘real estate brokerage business' of the category 36 of service business among the designated service businesses of this case, since the ‘written publication business' of the category 41 of service business of the category 1 of service business of this case and the ‘written publication business of the category 41 of the service business of this case among the designated service businesses of the registered service marks of this case, since the designated service marks of this case are closely related to the ‘written publication business of this case' of the category 36 of service business of this case and the ‘written publication business of the category 41 of the service business of this case among the designated service businesses of the registered service marks of this case, real estate appraisal business, real estate management business, office lease business, office lease business, market management business, apartment management business, apartment lease business, housing management business, housing management business, housing management

In light of the records, the above judgment of the above purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of service business or in violation of the rules of evidence.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below determined that the registered service mark of this case is likely to mislead or confuse the source of the registered service mark of this case as the ordinary consumers or traders of this case's service mark is recognized as a firm service mark of this case's 21st century, while the registered service mark of this case's "CENTURY 21st century" is the word with the meaning of "21st century" and "CENURY 100 years" and ordinary consumers have the meaning of "CENUY 21st century," since the registration service mark of this case and the cited mark of this case are different from the appearance of this case's trademark of this case's "21st century," and it is not likely to mislead or confuse the source of the registered service mark of this case's trademark of this case as the trademark of this case's use of the same or similar service business. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is justified to the purport that it is not likely to mislead or confuse the source of the registered service mark of this case's trademark of this case.

In light of the records, the judgment of the above purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of service marks or in violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. In addition, although the mark of the 21st century seems to have future-oriented and positive meaning and the trader wishes to use it as a service mark in various types of business, such fact alone cannot be seen as indicating the nature of the designated service of the registered service mark of this case or constituting a mark with no distinctive character. Thus, there is no ground of appeal as to this.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)