A. Method of determining similarity of combined service marks

(b) Whether the service mark “BEF BOWL” is similar to the service mark “BEF BOWL.”

A. At all times, a service mark is not a name or concept by the name or form of the entire constituent part, but a separate observation of each constituent part may be simply a name, a concept, and two or more names or concepts may be considered in a single service mark, unless it is inseparably indivisible to the extent that it is natural if it is not natural. As such, if one of them is recognized as identical or similar to another’s service mark, the two service marks are similar.

B. The cited service mark “BEF BOWL” refers to the cited service mark “BEF BOWL” and the cited service mark “BEF BOWL” and the cited service mark is deemed to be “non-fluor,” and the cited service mark may be deemed to be named and recognized only by “non-fluor” or “non-fluor,” inasmuch as the following diagrams may not be deemed to be a non-naturally indivisible combination to be observed separately in the transaction, and thus, if the cited service mark is named and recognized as “non-fluor” and the cited service mark is identical to the pending service mark and its name and concept, and thus, if both are used for the same kind of service business, it may cause mistake and confusion to ordinary consumers or traders.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Hu561 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 2539), 91Hu875 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 689), 91Hu1076 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong192, 790), 94Hu135 delivered on June 24, 1994

Gai-gu, Hai-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 194 Dated January 28, 1994 92 Appellant1805 Decision

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

The grounds of appeal by the applicant shall be examined.

A service mark, at all times, is not a name or concept by the name or shape of the entire constituent part, but a part of each constituent part may be briefly named, conceptualized, and conceptualized by only one of its constituent parts, unless it is inseparably indivisible to the extent natural if it is observed separately from each constituent part. As such, if one of its titles and concepts is deemed identical or similar to another’s service mark, then the two service marks are similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Hu561, Sept. 10, 1991; 91Hu875, Dec. 24, 1991; 91Hu875, Sept. 10, 199).

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below affirmed the judgment below as follows. The cited service mark "BEF BOWL" refers to the pre-registered service mark and appearance "BEF BEF BOWL", and the cited service mark is referred to as "non-fluort," and the cited service mark is referred to as "non-fluort," and the cited service mark is referred to as "BEF BOWL", and the cited service mark is referred to as "non-fluor," and it cannot be deemed that the following diagrams are indivisiblely indivisible to observe in the trade separately from those described in the inside top part of the original form, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the cited service mark is referred to as "non-fluor" or "brut" and if the cited service mark is perceived as "non-fluor", if the cited service mark is used for the same kind of service business, it is likely to mislead general consumers or traders, and thus, it is likely to cause confusion by applying the provision of Article 7 (1)7) of the Trademark Act.

In light of the records, in the cited service mark, the letter "BEF BOWL" is an integral part of the figure, or only the figure is not deemed an integral part of the figure, so it is not possible to judge the similarity of both the above letter and the two service marks. Therefore, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of reasons or service marks, as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation, lack of reasons, or omission of legal principles as to the similarity of service marks. Furthermore, the precedents cited in the theory of lawsuit are not appropriate in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)