Encouraging (Patent Attorney Kim Sung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

March 10, 2005

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 9, 2004 on the case No. 2004 Won2385 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The pending service mark

(1) Date/application number: September 13, 2002/ 2002-18642

(2) Composition:

(c) Designated service business: Business of licensed real estate agents (service business category 36);

(b) Prior registered service marks;

(1) Date of application/registration date (registration date of renewal of the duration)/registration number: September 10, 1990/ January 15, 1992 ( November 25, 2002)/No 15502

(2) Composition:

(3) Service mark right holder: El branch Co., Ltd. (the time the application for the instant service mark was filed, but the corporation was merged into El branch Co., Ltd. on May 2, 2003)

(d) Designated service business: Lestop business, carpeta business, youth hostel business, hotel business, hotel business, real estate rental business, supermarket management business, department store management business, product delivery business, dispatch agency business, vending machine lease business (service category 112) [the classification of service business of December 9, 200, real estate rental business (service category 35), real estate rental business, veterinary market management business, department store management business (service category 36), product delivery business, gift delivery agency business (service category 39), gift agency business (service category 39), tourist hostel business, youth hostel business, hotel business (service category 43)];

C. Reasons for the decision of refusal and the trial decision of this case

On September 13, 2002, the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of a service mark with respect to the instant applied service mark, but the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on May 27, 2004 on the ground that the instant applied service mark falls under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act because it is identical or similar to the prior registered service mark.

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a trial seeking the revocation of the above decision of rejection, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal reviewed it as 204 won2385 and observed it as December 9, 2004, and the pre-registered service mark as the same and similar marks in the name and concept of the pending service mark and the pending service mark as the designated service provider of the pending service mark constitutes the same and similar marks, and the designated service provider of the pending service mark " also dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on the ground that it is identical or similar to the pre-registered service mark".

【Evidence-Related Class 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

The Plaintiff asserts that the pending service mark and the pre-registered service mark of this case are different from appearance, name, and concept, and the contents of the designated service, the scope of users, and the qualification of the provider are different, and both of the registered service marks are not similar. Thus, the instant trial decision should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

Therefore, even if the pending service mark of this case is identical or similar to the initial service mark, the pending service mark of this case is composed of "25 m3" letters in white, and its overall appearance is different from that of "LG 25 m3," and the registered service mark of this case is composed of "4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m2 m4 m4 m4 m2 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m2 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m2 m4 m4.

Therefore, the pending service mark does not fall under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act in relation to the pre-registered service mark without examining whether it is similar to the pre-registered service mark and the designated goods.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of this case is unlawful, so it is decided as per Disposition to revoke it.

Judges Choi Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)