[1] The case where the use of a registered trademark as a service mark is likely to cause mistake or confusion

[2] The case affirming a person guilty of violating the Trademark Act on the ground that the service mark used by the trademark falls under the scope of the right of the registered trademark

[1] With respect to a service business related to goods, if a mark identical or similar to a mark used in a service business closely related to the goods is used as the service mark, ordinary consumers may cause confusion about the source of the service mark as if the service provider is the same person as the manufacturer and seller of the goods. In particular, in light of the actual circumstances of the transaction society, the provision of the service business and the sale of the goods are made by the same business operator, and if the general public tend to think of such confusion, it is more likely to cause confusion.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below convicting the Defendant of the violation of the Trademark Act on the ground that, in light of the actual condition of a trade society where the manufacturer and distributor of electronic products has been engaged in various distribution business, sales strategy business, and repair business through the agency, etc., the Defendant's use of the service mark "Tong Institute Center" is likely to mislead general consumers as to the origin, credit, quality, etc. of the service mark, and thus, the use of the service mark falls under the scope of the right of the registered trademark, and thus, the use of the trademark falls under the scope of the registered trademark.

[1] Article 66 of the Trademark Act / [2] Articles 66 and 93 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Hu20 delivered on March 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 710), Supreme Court Decision 92Hu184 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 536), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1155 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 539), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1421, 1438 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1017)

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 95No131 delivered on July 6, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to a service business related to goods among the service business, if a mark which is identical or similar to a mark used on the goods is used for the service business closely related to the goods, general consumers may cause confusion as to the origin of the service mark as if the provider of the service business is the same as the manufacturer and seller of the goods. In particular, considering the actual circumstances of the transaction society, the provision of the service business and the sale of the goods are made by the same business operator, and if there is a tendency for the general public to think of it, such confusion is more likely (see Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1421, 1438, Feb. 8, 1994).

According to the records, in light of the actual situation of a trade society where a manufacturer and seller of electronic products in the franchising electric products enters various fields of distribution business, sales strategy business, breakdown repair business, etc. through its agency, if the defendant runs a related service business, such as the sale of electronic products, using the service mark "Tong Institute Center", it shall be deemed that there is a possibility that the defendant misleads the general consumers as an agent of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. which is a trademark right holder, to mistake and confuse the origin, credit, quality, etc. of the service business, and in such cases, the use of the service mark falls under the scope of the registered trademark right

In accordance with the above legal principles, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of violating the Trademark Act by using the registered trademark as a service mark is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the use of the trademark. We

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)