The case holding that even if the registration of the cited service mark was invalidated after the application for the applied service mark, there is no obstacle to taking the cited service mark as the object of comparison in determining whether the cited service mark falls under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

The case holding that since Article 7 (3) of the Trademark Act provides that the provisions of paragraph (1) 7 of the same Article shall apply to those corresponding thereto at the time of application for trademark registration (if another person's registered trademark becomes null and void pursuant to Article 71 (3) of the Trademark Act, it shall be deemed to fall under those corresponding thereto), the cited service mark shall not be registered pursuant to Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, on the premise that there is no difficulty in judging whether the cited service mark falls under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act even if the registration becomes null and void after the application for the applied service mark was made, and the cited service mark shall not be registered under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act because it is similar to the cited service mark for which the registration becomes null and void pursuant to Article 71 (3) of the Trademark Act at the time of the application.

Article 7 (1) 7, Paragraph (3) of the Trademark Act

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

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 200Heo2972 delivered on October 19, 2000

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since Article 7 (3) of the Trademark Act provides that Article 7 (1) 7 of the same Act provides that "the provisions of Article 7 (3) 7 of the same Act shall apply to the goods which fall thereunder (if another person's registered trademark is invalidated under Article 71 (3) of the Trademark Act, it shall be deemed to fall thereunder) at the time of the application for trademark registration, the court below held that the quoted service mark 1 (trademark 1 omitted) and the quoted service mark 2 (trademark 2 omitted), even if the registration becomes invalid after the application of the applied service mark of this case, the court below held that the cited service mark 1 and 2 of the applied service mark of this case shall be compared to the cited service mark 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act in determining whether the registered service mark of this case falls under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act after the application of the applied service mark of this case, and that the registered service mark of this case applied for on May 21, 1998 is similar to the cited service mark 1 and 2.

In light of the records and the legal principles of Article 7 (3) of the Trademark Act, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)