[1] The case holding that there is no ground for rejection under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, on the grounds that the term "satisfakak operation business", the designated service business of the applied service mark, "Satfakakakakakakakak, the business of operating the Satfakakakakakakakakakakakak, the business of operating the Satfakakakakakakakakakakakakak, the business of operating the Satfakakakakakakakakakakakak, the business of operating the Sat

[2] The case holding that "the applied service mark " does not constitute a service mark that is likely to deceive consumers under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act"

[1] The case holding that there is no ground for rejection under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, on the grounds that the term "satisfakak operation business", the designated service business of the applied service mark, "Guakakakakakakakakakakakak, the business of operating the Goakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakak, the business of operating the Goakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakak, the business of operating the Goakakakakakakakakakakakakakakak,

[2] The case holding that since it is difficult to readily conclude that the term "the essential part of the Korean language portion" of the applied service mark "" is not the "Seoul City City City City Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do," but the term "Seoul City Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do," it can be perceived as the "Gu Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do" in Seoul established and operated by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Do Do Do Do Do," it can be recognized as the "Gu Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do" in the above applied service mark, as it has a very close relation with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Do Do Do Do Do Do, and it does not fall under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, even if general consumers understand that the Do Do Do Do Do d

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on May 1, 201

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2002Heo8264 delivered on April 25, 2003

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The judgment of the court below

The court below held that the pending service mark of this case is a combined service mark consisting of diagrams, Korean and English characters, and that the figure part can be distinguished from Korean and English parts because it has no distinctive character, and that the figure part can be recognized and named as "Seong Culture Center" and "Seoul Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Singu", and held that the registered service mark of this case (registration No. 1 omitted) is different from the registered service mark (registration No. 1 omitted), which is the registration No. 2, from the registration No. 2, from the registration No. 2, from the registration No. 2, the majority of citizens have widely known to the general public to easily recognize it as the unique name of the cultural and art space located in Jongno-gu Seoul.

Furthermore, the court below held that the designated service business of the service mark of this case and the designated service business of the registered service mark of this case are different in terms of the nature, use, service provider, user, etc. of the service business of this case, and the designated service business of the applied service mark of this case and the designated service business of the registered service mark of this case are not similar service business, but the performance service of the registered service mark of this case and the performance service of the registered service mark of this case are provided to the general public through the organization, operation, and the performance. The court below held that the designated service business of this case and the designated service business of the registered service mark of this case cannot be viewed as the grounds for rejection under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

B. Judgment of the Supreme Court

In order to determine whether a service mark applied for registration has grounds for rejection under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, the mark of the applied service mark is similar to the mark of the registered service mark, and furthermore, whether the designated service business of the applied service mark is similar to each other. As to the similarity of the registered service mark, if the applied service mark is a combined service mark combining each of the constituent elements of letters, letters, and diagrams, it is not necessarily called and conceptualized by the entire constituent part, but it can be called and conceptualized simply by only part of the constituent part unless it is an indivisible service to the extent that it is natural in the transaction if the composition is separated and observed, and if it is possible to consider two or more names or concepts from one service mark, it shall be determined as similar (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Hu16368, Feb. 24, 1987; 2007Hu16276, Feb. 26, 200, etc.).

Although the lower court determined that the pending service mark of this case can be separately recognized by one of the parts in Korean and English characters, it is only determined that the Korean language portion is not similar to the pre-registered service mark, but did not determine whether the English language portion is similar to the pre-registered service mark.

However, in order to establish the grounds for rejection under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act on the service mark for which an application for registration was filed, the mark of the applied service mark is similar to the prior registered service mark, and the designated service business should also be similar. Thus, the above judgment of the court below that even if the English characters of the applied service mark are similar to those of the prior registered service mark 2, it is just in light of the records and the above legal principles, and the above judgment of the court below is not similar to the designated service business, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground for appeal, and the above error in the misapprehension of legal principles is not affected by the conclusion of the court below. Accordingly, it is just that the court below did not accept the allegation that the applied service mark of this case had the grounds for rejection under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act,

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion that the registration of the instant pending service mark ought to be refused under the aforementioned provision is not permissible on the ground that the instant pending service mark is likely to mislead or confuse the pending service mark as a Korean traditional music market operated by Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on the grounds that the instant pending service mark falls under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act.

However, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a trial decision rejecting a request for a trial against rejection, the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office may assert and prove the reason why the conclusion of the trial decision is legitimate (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu1617, Feb. 26, 2003). According to the records, at the examination stage of the application for the registration of the pending service mark, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act) as well as the reason why the pending service mark is similar to the initial service mark (Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act), and it can be known that the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the reason that the pending service mark might be similar to the initial service mark (Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act) and issued an opportunity to submit a written opinion by setting a time limit for submission of the written opinion. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's decision of rejection of the pending service mark without determining whether the pending service mark falls under Article 7(1)111 of the Trademark Act.

However, as cited in the decision of refusal, the Korean language part of the pending service mark of this case is not "Seoul Symnasium" but "Seoul Symnasium". Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Korean language part of the pending service mark of this case is the "Symnasium" established and operated by the local government of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and rather, it can be recognized as the "Symnasium" in Seoul operated by the Symnasium Culture Center. Furthermore, according to the records, the plaintiff foundation is a corporation established by the "Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of Symnasium" of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of Symnasium, which is the basic property of the market after the resolution of the board of directors, and the purpose stated in the articles of incorporation is to contribute to the realization of social welfare of the citizens' hall of Seoul Special Metropolitan City or the director of the plaintiff foundation, which is an organization of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City or its affiliated foundation, and it seems that it is closely related to the plaintiff state or its affiliated foundation.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant cannot assert that the applied service mark of this case constitutes Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act is unlawful. However, the above error does not affect the conclusion of the court below. Accordingly, it is just to accept the claim that the applied service mark of this case constitutes Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above provision of the Trademark Act as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)