A. In a case where it is possible to think of two or more names and concepts regarding a single combined service mark, whether only one name and concept is the same as or similar to the other person’s service mark’s name and concept, whether the two service marks are deemed similar service marks (affirmative)

B. The pending service mark “whether or not the cited service mark “(affirmative)” registered by the earlier application

(c) World well-known. Where a well-known service mark is identical or similar to another person’s registered service mark by an earlier application and the designated business is also identical or similar to that of another person (negative)

A. If the combined service mark is not an indivisible combination to the extent that it is considered that it is natural and unrecognizably impossible to observe each constituent part separately, only a part of its constituent part may arise from a simple name or concept, and at least two titles or concepts may arise from a single service mark. As such, if it is possible to think of two or more titles or concepts regarding a single service mark, one of them shall not be the same as or similar to the name and concept of another person's service mark, even if the concept is similar to that of another person's service mark, it shall be deemed that the two service marks are similar.

B. The pending service mark is "marked as "," and the cited service mark of another person's registered service mark based on the earlier application is "in Korean" and "the overall appearance of two service marks is different," but it is not indivisible to the extent that it is natural to separately observe and observe two elements, as the above quoted service mark refers to " " "," which means apologys, fruit trees, etc. constituting the cited service mark, and "" which means boxes, gifts, etc., and so, it is not indivisible. Thus, if the above quoted service mark can be recognized as "fluor" in two names and concepts from the above quoted service mark, it is identical with the pending service mark, and if the two service marks are used for the designated service business as different, it is likely for ordinary consumers or traders to mislead and confuse the source of the service business. Thus, the pending service mark cannot be registered as a similar service mark.

(c) Even if a service mark is a global well-known and well-known service mark, insofar as it is identical or similar to another person’s registered service mark by earlier application and constitutes a service mark used for a service business identical or similar to the designated business of another person, the service mark cannot be registered pursuant to Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act.

Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act

(a)B. (c) Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1741 delivered on March 27, 1991 (dong). 89Hu193 delivered on February 23, 1990, Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1394 delivered on May 8, 1990, Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1561 delivered on May 22, 1990, Supreme Court Decision 86Hu147 delivered on January 20, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 89Hu421 delivered on February 13, 1990

Patent Attorney Kim Yoon-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Trial Office 89Hun-won521 dated August 31, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the applicant’s attorney

In a case where a combined service mark does not form a name or concept only by the whole component of the service mark, but is not an integral combination to the extent that it cannot be natural if it is separately observed by dividing each constituent part, only a part of the constituent part may arise, and where two or more titles or concepts may arise from a single service mark, and where it is possible to think of two or more titles or concepts with respect to a single service mark, even though one of them is not identical or similar to another's service mark, if the other names or concepts are similar to those of the service mark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Hu149, Oct. 26, 1987; 89Hu76969, Feb. 13, 1990; 209Hu39699, Aug. 19, 198; 2009Hu93969, Aug. 19, 195; 2009Hu15969, Feb. 15, 1990;

On February 24, 198, the court below held that the original service mark (the cited service mark) which is the original service mark registered by the earlier application is identical to the original service mark "," in Korean, and the cited service mark (2) which is the other person's registered service mark by the earlier application is different from the overall appearance of the two service marks, but the cited service mark (2) consists of two elements, " "," "," "," "," "," ", "," "," "," which means ", "," which means ", "," and "," which means "," which means ", "," which means, "," which means, ".........., the above cited service mark is not an integral combination to the extent that it is naturally impossible to separately observe these two elements." Thus, the court below's determination that the above cited service mark is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the origin of the service mark, and therefore, there is no concern to mislead general consumers or traders as to the origin of the service mark.

The decisions of the party members, which the theory of the lawsuit is a precedent, are all relevant to the other cases, and it is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case.

2. Determination on the above grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

Even if the original service mark is a global well-known and well-known service mark like the novel, insofar as it is identical or similar to another person’s registered service mark by earlier application and constitutes a service mark used for a service business identical or similar to the designated business of another person, it cannot be registered pursuant to Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Hu147, Jan. 20, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 89Hu421, Feb. 13, 1990). Thus, we cannot accept the issue of criticism that there is an error of neglecting the duty of explanation in the original service decision or neglecting the deliberation properly.

3. Therefore, the appeal by the applicant is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)