Registered service mark "Stong business which is a designated service business and cited service mark"

"The case holding that there is no economic flexibility between newspaper publishing business which is a service provider and thus there is no concern about mistake, confusion, mistake of quality, or consumer of the source of service between the two service marks."

Registered service mark "Stong business which is a designated service business and cited service mark"

"New newspaper publishing business, which is a service business, is hard to find any special relation due to a change in the type of the business or the circumstances of the transaction, and in particular, it cannot be said that the publication and sale of newspapers and the provision of travel services are made by the same business operator in light of the actual circumstances of the transaction society, and there are many cases where the general public do not have any economic flexible relation, and even if the two service marks are used in the same manner, there is no concern about misconception, confusion, quality mistake, or consumer of the source of the service in relation to the designated service business.

[1] Article 7 (1) 10 and 11 of the Trademark Act

Han Jin Newspapers Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Final Acceptance)

Kim Chang-suk

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on August 30, 2002 on the case No. 2001Da2002 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

[Evidence: Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 1, and the whole purport of the pleading of Evidence No. 1]

A. Registered service mark of this case

(a) Registration number: No. 66480;

(2) Date of application/registration: January 14, 2000/ November 10, 2001

(3) Marks:

(d)Designated service business: tourist guidance service, tourist travel service, tour tour service, tour guide service, tourist guidance service, guide service, tour agency service, tour reservation service, tourist seat reservation service, etc. for the categories of service businesses under [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act.

(b) A cited service mark;

(a) Marks:

(b) Employment service business: Publication and sales business of newspapers;

C. Details of the instant trial decision

The plaintiff filed for a registration invalidation trial that the registered service mark of this case should be invalidated pursuant to Article 7(1)10 and 11 of the Trademark Act because the registered service mark of this case is similar to the well-known service mark and its appearance, and is registered for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits by taking advantage of the well-known service mark's well-known service mark's well-known service mark's well-known service mark's well-known service mark's reputation. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal reviewed the above case's appeal as 2001Da2002 and dismissed the above appeal on August 30, 202.

D. Summary of the grounds for the instant trial decision

(1) Whether Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act is applicable

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the claimant (the plaintiff), it can be seen as widely known to the domestic consumers in newspapers, periodicals, and communications publishing and selling business. However, the cited service mark does not constitute a well-known service mark, since it is difficult to recognize that the above evidence alone is a well-known service mark among general consumers, and therefore, the registered service mark of this case falls under the provisions of Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act.

(2) Whether Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act is applicable

The aforementioned evidence alone cannot be deemed as having known to the extent that the cited service mark in relation to the designated service business is recognizable as the applicant’s service mark in newspapers, periodicals, communications publishing business, etc., even if there is well-knownness in the designated service business, such as travel brokerage business, tourist guidance business, etc., and even if the registered service mark in this case is used in the designated service business, it cannot be said that it is a product produced and sold by the applicant or a person with a special business relationship with the applicant, and it is not likely to mislead or confuse the consumers, or cause confusion. Thus, the registered service mark in this case cannot be said to fall under the provisions of Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act.

2. The party's assertion as to the legitimacy of the trial decision of this case

A. Grounds for revoking the trial decision of this case by the plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to whether Article 7(1)10 and 11 of the Trademark Act is violated

Since the cited service mark was published on December 15, 1987, it was one of five days for about 13 years following the application and registration of the instant registered service mark, and is not only consumers but also almost all citizens well-known service mark. The instant registered service mark is a service mark identical or similar to the cited service mark, which is recognized as being the same or similar to the cited service mark, causing mistake and confusion as to the source of service.

In addition, the plaintiff started the tourist travel business on April 14, 1997 with "Seong-gu," and on December 22, 1999, the New Media Bureau and Distribution Department of Hansan Newspapers, and the travel business division are independent of "Seong-gu, Co., Ltd." and actively arranging its organization and structure and active business activities.

Therefore, the registered service mark of this case is highly likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the source of service between well-known and well-known service mark and well-known and well-known service mark, and thus, it is highly likely to mislead or mislead consumers as to the quality of service. Therefore, it should be invalidated in accordance with Article 7(1)10 and 11 of the Trademark Act.

(2) As to whether Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act is violated

The use of the registered service mark of this case constitutes an act of causing confusion with another person's business facilities or activities by using a mark identical or similar to a mark indicating another person's business, trade name, or other mark widely known to the Republic of Korea, which constitutes an unfair competition act and thus constitutes an act of infringing on fair and credit transaction order in accordance with the positive law and order of public law. Thus, the registered service mark of this case constitutes a service mark that is likely to disturb the public order under Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The registered service mark of this case is a service mark that was applied and registered by the defendant himself at the time when the defendant was working as vice president in the "ICRD World Tour Co., Ltd.", which is the first registered service mark holder, and was applied to create us more favorable than the ex-post. The cited service mark is neither well nor well-known nor well-known, and thus the registered service mark of this case is not to be biased to the well-knownness of the cited

3. Determination

A. Whether the registered service mark of this case and the cited service mark are identical or similar

As to whether or not the registered service mark of this case and the cited service mark are identical or similar, the cited service mark is a letter service mark consisting of five Korean characters, and it can be easily separated and observed as two parts of the newspaper, and in relation to the use service business, the newspaper's "t have distinctiveness," and the registered service mark of this case is a letter service mark consisting of three Korean characters, but it cannot be said that the degree of diagrams has a separate distinctive character, but it does not reach the degree of figure composition's use of a unique letter, and the first two of the three of the three of the "Shyeong case" is similar to "Ye," and in particular, it seems to be very similar to that of ordinary consumers when it comes to be called, considering that there is a tendency that it would be easy for ordinary consumers to regard it as a whole. Therefore, the registered service mark of this case should be seen as an objective service mark similar to the registered service mark of this case.

B. Whether Article 7(1)10 and 11 of the Trademark Act is violated

As to whether the quoted service mark is a well-known service mark, the Plaintiff issued a newspaper using the quoted service mark as its head from December 15, 1987 to 36,56,367,631 won, 420,58,416,410,410,6410, 6410, 6410, 6324, 97, 974, 974, 97, 974, 974, 97, 974, 974, 974, 97, 97, 974, 97, 1992, 197, 197, 197, 194, 1636, 94, 97, 194, 194, 167, 197, 194

However, with respect to the designated service business of the registered service mark of this case, whether there is an economic flexible relationship to attract consumers by taking advantage of the well-knownness of the cited service mark and the reputation of the service business using it, the publication and sale of newspapers is a service business consisting mainly of specialized media companies for the establishment and supply of a new case or chemical book of society, which is a designated service business of the registered service mark of this case, such as travel brokerage business, tourist guidance business, tour travel agency business, tour travel agency business, tour guide business, tour guide agency business, tour guide agency business, tour guide business, reservation business, etc., which is a designated service business of the registered service mark of this case is a service business for the purpose of helping or arranging to attract tourists by taking advantage of the reputation of the cited service mark of this case. In particular, it is difficult to find any special relation with the type of business or transaction circumstances, and in view of the circumstances of the transaction society, it cannot be said that there is no economic relation between the general service provider and the travel service provider.

Therefore, even if both service marks are used in the same way, there is no concern about mistake, confusion, mistake of quality, or consumer's confusion about the source of service in relation to the designated service business, and thus, the registered service mark of this case cannot be deemed as a registered service mark in violation of Article 7 (1) 10 and 11 of the Trademark Act.

C. Whether Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act is violated

In order to constitute an act stipulated in subparagraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, it shall cause confusion with other person's business facilities or activities. As seen earlier, the registered service mark of this case is unlikely to cause confusion with the cited service mark with respect to its designated service business. Thus, the act of using the registered service mark of this case cannot be deemed as an act contrary to good customs such as fair order in the distribution of goods or business ethics, and it cannot be deemed as an act contrary to Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, there is no ground for invalidation in the registered service mark of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the trial decision of this case just and there is no ground for the plaintiff's claim of this case.

Judges Cho Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)