[1] The meaning of an interested party who can request a trial to invalidate service mark registration

[2] The criteria for determining whether the trademark constitutes "a trademark that is likely to mislead consumers" under Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act and the criteria for determining whether the trademark is "a trademark that is likely to mislead consumers" (=the time when the trademark registration is decided)

[3] The case holding that in comparison with the cited service mark, the registered service mark constitutes a mark which is likely to mislead consumers or deceive consumers as to its quality if it is used for the designated service business

[1] An interested person entitled to file a petition for an invalidation trial on the registration of a service mark refers to a person who uses or currently uses a service mark identical or similar to that of the registered service mark for a designated service business, or a person who has a direct interest in the extinction of the registered service mark as it provides the same kind of service as that designated by the registered service mark.

[2] For the purpose of "trademarks which are likely to deceive consumers" under Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990), the cited trademark or its goods are not necessarily well-known, but at least in general transactions in the Republic of Korea, it should be known to the extent that it can be perceived as a specific person's trademark or goods if it is a trademark or goods. In such a case, if a trademark identical or similar to the quoted trademark is used for designated goods identical or similar to the above goods, or if it is used for the goods identical or similar to the cited trademark, or if it is deemed that the trademark is used for goods identical or similar to those of the cited trademark, or if it is deemed that there are special circumstances to mislead consumers as to the extent that it is not used for goods identical or similar to those of the goods using the cited trademark, the decision of whether it is likely to cause confusion to consumers as to the source of the trademark should be made based on what legal principles are applicable.

[3] The case holding that, on the ground that the cited service mark was known to the extent that it could be recognized as a service mark indicating a specific person's business among the traders at the time of the registration of the registered service mark, the registered service mark and the quoted service mark are similar to each other, and the designated service business of the registered service mark and the quoted service business of the cited service mark constitute a service business having the same, similar, or economic relation, the registered service mark constitutes a mark likely to mislead consumers into the quality or deceive consumers if it is used for the designated service

[1] Article 43 (1) 2 (see current Article 71 (1)) and (3) (see current Article 71 (1)) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) / [2] Article 9 (1) 11 (see current Article 7 (1) 11) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) / [3] Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) (see current Article 7 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Hu59 delivered on March 22, 198 (Gong1988, 686), Supreme Court Decision 89Hu469 delivered on November 28, 198 (Gong1990, 148), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu149 delivered on August 25, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3282), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1401 delivered on March 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1265), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2309 delivered on July 24, 198 (Gong1998Ha, 22399) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Hu9399 delivered on June 22, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 209Hu93979 delivered on September 29, 197 (Gong1994, Nov. 39, 2997)

Plaintiff (Law Firm KEL, Attorneys Kim Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Madro-blade Stet Trab Meca, Madle (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 200Heo1733 delivered on January 12, 2000

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

1. As to the fourth ground for appeal

An interested person entitled to file a petition for an invalidation trial on the registration of a service mark means a person who has used or currently uses a service mark identical or similar to that of the registered service mark for a designated service business, or who has a direct interest in the extinction of the registered service mark (see Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2309 delivered on July 24, 1998).

According to the records, the defendant has used "GIA" similar to the registered service mark of this case at home and abroad, and owns (service mark registration number omitted) the service mark of this case as "G.I.A./(A.A.A./A.)" as "education and guidance business on release on bail" as the designated service business, and the registration of the service mark of this case was invalidated due to the existence of the registered service mark of this case which is the prior registration, so the defendant has a direct interest in the extinguishment of the registered service mark of this case.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant constitutes a legitimate interested party in the claim for invalidation trial of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6

For the purpose of "trademarks which are likely to deceive consumers" under Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply), the cited trademark or its goods are not necessarily well-known, but at least in general transactions in Korea, it should be known to the extent that it can be perceived as a specific person's trademark or goods if it is a trademark or goods. In such cases, if a trademark identical or similar to the quoted trademark is used on the designated goods identical or similar to the above goods, or if it is used on the goods identical or similar to the cited trademark, or if it is deemed that the trademark is used on goods identical or similar to the goods using the cited trademark, or if it is likely to mislead consumers as to the extent that it is not used on goods identical or similar to the goods using the cited trademark, the determination of whether it is likely to cause confusion to consumers as to the origin of the trademark shall be made 90 after 194,904.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the cited service mark cannot be deemed to constitute a well-known service mark widely known to ordinary consumers in Korea around November 6, 1985, which was at the time of the application for the registered service mark of this case, the court below determined that the registered service mark of this case and the cited service mark of this case, which are combined with two parts above, are similar to the registered service mark of this case where "G.I.A" and "A" are identical to the registered service mark of this case and the cited service mark of this case, since it was known that the cited service mark cannot be deemed to constitute a well-known service mark that is widely known to ordinary consumers in Korea, such as the time of its registration, around November 25, 1986, as at the time of its registration, and since it was recognized that the transaction of this case such as bail education or bail was recognized as a service mark indicating the defendant's business, the registration of this case's service mark of this case, which is the designated service mark of this case, is identical to the registered service mark of this case, or its quality.

In light of records and relevant laws and regulations, the above measures of the court below are deemed legitimate, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The appellant asserts that the court below did not based on the general consumer's awareness of the cited service mark, but did not err in the judgment of the court below based on the degree of perception of some of the experts on bail. However, since the bail in the course of conducting the release on bail and selling the release on bail constitute a part of the consumers at the same time, the court below did not have any illegality in holding that the registered service mark of this case constitutes a mark that is likely to mislead or mislead consumers as to the quality of the registered service mark on the basis of the level of awareness of the traders, such as the release on bail, and further, the appellant did not have any illegality in determining that the cited service mark of this case constitutes a mark that is likely to mislead consumers or deceive consumers. Furthermore, even if the cited service mark of the defendant is likely to cause confusion between a non-profit business emblem and a source, it does not interfere with the quality of the service mark as

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)