The case holding that the applied service mark " constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a technical mark or a trademark with no other distinctive character in relation to the relation of "mark management business, professional discount management business, permanent discount operation management business, etc." which is its designated service business;

The case holding that the applied service mark " not only falls under a service mark consisting solely of marks directly indicating the quality (such as discount points, professional discount points, and permanent discount point), but also constitutes a service mark consisting of marks indicating the quality (such as discount points, professional discount points, and permanent discount point), since it is directly used in the meaning of "specially superior, high-class discount points or discount store" by the general consumers of our country, etc., among its designated service business, it is not possible for consumers to distinguish the mark of the applied service mark from the mark of the service mark itself.

Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act

Bloitian Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hanyang Patent Attorney Han-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

May 21, 2004

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 29, 2004 on the case No. 2003 Won2035 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

[Evidence: Evidence No. 1 to 3, Evidence No. 1 to 1, 2]

A. The pending service mark

(1) Application number: No. 2001-16439

(2) Date of application: August 24, 2001

(3) Marks:

(4) Designated service business: Article 6 (2) [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the former Trademark Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy No. 146 of December 24, 2001), "business managers' business, export and import agent business, 36's discount management business, specialized discount management business, department store management business, market management business, wholesale market management business, real estate management business, real estate brokerage business, building sale brokerage business, real estate rental business, and permanent discount management business."

B. Reasons for the decision of refusal and the trial decision of this case

On April 28, 2003, the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on the ground that the pending service mark falls under Article 6 (1) 3 and 7 of the Trademark Act, since it is directly displayed the quality of the designated service business, and as the "Outlet" is used as the selling place of the service, it cannot be identified whose business the whole service is indicated.

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a petition for a trial seeking the revocation of the above decision of rejection, and the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board reviewed the petition as 2003 won2035 and dismissed the plaintiff's petition for a trial on the following grounds on January 29, 2004.

D. Summary of the grounds for the instant trial decision

The term "Preum" of the applied service mark of this case is mainly used in terms of "profit arising from the difference between the selling price or purchase price of apartment houses and the actual selling price or the selling price" in the 1970s or in the 1990s, and it is used in terms of "goods that benefit from special benefits such as excellent quality, sive discount, etc.," and thus it is possible for ordinary consumers to recognize the quality of certain goods or service business, and if ordinary consumers can recognize it, it is an undistinctive mark. In our society, the term "creum" is used in terms of "the benefit arising from the difference between the selling price or purchase price of apartment houses" in the 1970s or in the 1980s or above, and it is not reasonable to see that general consumers can use the service mark as a mark indicating the quality of goods or service business, and thus, it is not reasonable to see that the service mark of this case can be used as a mark indicating the quality of goods or service business.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. Grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s trial decision

Although "Preium" of the pending service mark has positive meanings, such as "progl, reward, product, discount, bonus, etc.", it is used to indicate that the trademark or service mark containing "Preium" has a differentiated feature from the existing goods and service business, it does not directly represent the common and general character of the goods or service business. The word "Premium" is known to the general nature of the designated service business of the pending service mark because it is known to the general consumers in Korea as the word "Preium" or "Preium" and "Preium" or "Preium" or "Preus" is not a distinctive feature even if many registrations are registered in our country, the United States, Japan, etc., and it cannot be said that the pending service mark does not directly indicate that "quality discount" or "quality discount" are excellent and it does not constitute the trademark law and Article 17 (1) 6 (3) of the Trademark Act.

(b) Markets:

(1) As to the issue of whether the pending service mark falls under the above paragraph 3 and 7 of Article 6 of the Trademark Act, the applied service mark of this case is composed of "Pret" and its Korean language "Pret", and the part of "Pret" and "Pret" among these trademarks is widely used as a whole in the English pre-sale service business, since it is not only a pre-sale service mark or a pre-sale service mark, but also a pre-sale service mark, it is widely used in the English pre-sale service business, and thus, it is meaningful in our country's meaning that the above pre-sale service mark falls under the pre-sale service business, and it is not a pre-sale service mark's high-quality and pre-sale service mark's high-quality market price, and it is not a pre-sale service mark's high-quality market price or high-quality market price.

(2) In light of the fact that a trademark or service mark containing "Preum" or "Preum" is registered in many countries, the United States, Japan, etc., the Plaintiff asserts that it does not directly indicate the quality, etc. of the designated goods or service business. However, whether a trademark or service mark is eligible for registration shall be determined individually according to each trademark or service mark in relation to the designated goods or service business, and the registration of the applied trademark or service mark shall be determined independently in relation to the designated goods or service business under the Korean Trademark Act, and the legal system or language practiceman does not go against other foreign registration practices (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1866, Jun. 24, 1997). The above argument is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the applied service mark of this case is clear that it falls under Article 6 (1) 3 or 7 of the Trademark Act in relation to at least some designated service businesses. Thus, the applied service mark of this case cannot be registered as a service mark for all designated service businesses. Accordingly, the decision of this case is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-hwan (Presiding Judge)