A. The meaning of an interested person who is entitled to request a trial for revocation of trademark registration

(b) The case holding that if there are circumstances under which a service mark similar to the registered trademark for seeking revocation was filed and a rejection ruling was rejected, it constitutes an interested person

C. Whether the person is an interested party at an ex officio examination

(a) An interested party under Article 43 (2) of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990) which is entitled to request a revocation trial on a trademark registration means a person who has a direct and real interest in the extinguishment of the registered trademark, as it is objectively obvious that the trademark might be damaged by being unable to use the trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark under an unlawful opposition against the trademark right to be revoked, or that it would be objectively affected by its legal status.

(b) The case holding that if there are circumstances under which a service mark similar to the registered trademark for seeking revocation was filed and a rejection ruling was rejected, it constitutes an interested person;

(c) The issue of whether an interested person is a party’s qualification is an ex officio examination.

(a) Article 45(1)1, Article 43(1)1, and Article 43(1)2(c) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 190); Articles 124 and 265 of the Civil Procedure Act

A.C. Supreme Court Decision 92Hu162,179 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992,2668). Supreme Court Decision 88Hu1519 delivered on October 10, 1989 (Gong1989,1676) 88Hu1328 delivered on January 25, 1990 (Gong190,535) 90Hu287 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong1991,1646). (b) Supreme Court Decision 88Hu158 delivered on April 25, 198 (Gong198,912)

Patent Attorney Kim Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant

Patent Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

On November 30, 1992, the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered 91 2, 3 (Consolidated), 4 (Consolidated) ruling

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to Articles 45(1)1 and 43(1)1 and 43(2) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990), where a trademark right holder impliedly approves or uses a trademark identical or similar to his/her own trademark to be used by another person on goods identical or similar to the designated goods, the trademark registration shall be cancelled by a trial requested by an interested person. The "interested person" refers to a person who has a direct and real interest in the extinguishment of the registered trademark, as it is objectively obvious that the trademark right to be cancelled is likely to be damaged by being unable to use the trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark, or to be affected by the legal status of the trademark, because it is objectively obvious that the trademark is identical or similar to the registered trademark, and it is likely that the trademark will be used by another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Hu1519, Oct. 10, 199; 8Hu1328, May 14, 1991).

However, according to the records, a claimant filed an application for a service mark recognized as similar to the registered trademark of this case on August 14, 1990 with a designated service business as a claimant, but filed an appeal after receiving a rejection ruling. At the time the appeal of this case was concluded, the circumstances that were pending in the appellate trial of this case, which were the designated goods of this case and the designated service business of claimant, are closely related to the handled goods as they belong to the same kind of goods. Considering the circumstances of the trade society, the similarity should be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 92Hu1844 delivered on December 21, 1993; 93Hu155 delivered on December 21, 1993; 93Hu155 delivered on December 21, 1993).

In addition, the issue of whether a party constitutes an interested party is an ex officio matter as a matter of party qualification, and such circumstances should be determined by considering the above circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 92Hu162, 179 delivered on July 28, 1992).

However, the court below judged that a claimant does not constitute an interested party and did not proceed to the determination of the merits, and thus, it cannot be exempted from the reversal because the original decision cannot be found unlawful. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that it is unnecessary to determine the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case is reversed, and remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a trial and determination.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)