[1] Criteria for determining similarity of service marks

[2] Whether the applied service mark "domination of fish money" and the cited service mark "domination of fish money" are similar to the applied service mark "domination of fish money," which is a designated service business (negative)

[1] Whether a service mark is similar or not should be determined by whether consumers or traders are likely to mislead or confuse the source of the service business on the basis of a direct perception that consumers or traders feel about the service mark by comprehensively observing the appearance, name, and concept of the two service marks in various aspects. The combined service mark consisting of each constituent element of letters, letters, or diagrams is not necessarily called and conceptualized by the entire constituent part, but can be called and conceptualized simply by a part of the constituent parts, unless the combined service mark consisting of an integral combination to the degree that it is deemed natural in the transaction if the respective constituent parts are separately observed.

[2] In principle, the term "mar" used in the applied service mark consists of one door, so it is natural in the transaction of each constituent part, and in relation to the cited service mark "saturine" used in common to provide general consumers with food and drink containing the legitimacy and love" with regard to the designated service business, it seems that many traders will be aware of the quality and efficacy of the designated service business, and even if the word "saturine" used as a service mark such as Korean-style store business, etc. due to the universal composition or friendship with the word "saturine" used in the designated service mark, it is difficult to see that the designated service mark is identical or similar to the designated service mark prior to the application of the applied service mark in relation to the service business identical or similar to the designated service business of the applied service mark, it is difficult to see that it is difficult to see that the designated service mark is identical or similar to the designated service mark "Isil City", "saturine service business", "saturine", "hurine business", and so on the designated service mark or other service mark.

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1395 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 553), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1685 delivered on April 12, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1587), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu795 delivered on March 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1108), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2517 delivered on September 26, 199 (Gong197Ha, 3294), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu829 delivered on April 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1049Sang, 109Sang, 209Hu19849 delivered on July 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1049).

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 98Heo10482 delivered on April 16, 1999

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

1. The court below determined to the purport that the service mark of this case is not registered under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act on the ground that, in comparison with the service mark of this case's patent application of this case's service mark's "catho" and the cited service mark's "catho" which was applied earlier and registered earlier, the appearance of this case is somewhat below, but it does not directly indicate the quality or efficacy of Korean food store business, etc., which is the designated service mark's "catho" or "catho", and it is merely a mark with no distinctive character, so it can be called and conceptualized as "catho" which can be viewed as an essential part in the two service marks, and if the trademark of this case is used for the designated service business, consumers can not be registered under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act on the ground that there is concern that it might mislead or confuse the source of the cited service mark and service business.

2. However, whether a service mark is similar or not should be determined by whether consumers or traders are likely to mislead or confuse the source of the service mark based on a direct perception that consumers or traders feel about the service mark by comprehensively observing the appearance, name, and concept of the two service marks in various aspects. The combined service mark consisting of each constituent element of letters, letters, or diagrams is not necessarily called and conceptualized by the entire constituent part, but can be called and conceptualized simply by a part of the constituent parts, unless the combined service mark consisting of an indivisible part to the extent that it is deemed natural in the transaction if separate observation of each constituent part is made (see Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1395, Dec. 22, 1995).

In this case, in principle, the pending service mark is composed of one door form, so it is not natural in the transaction, and in relation to the designated service mark, ‘satis', which is a common part in the two service marks, provides general consumers with food containing ‘specificity and love' in relation to the designated service business, and it seems that consumers have expressed the quality or efficacy of the designated service business and desire to use it as the service mark for the designated service business, etc. due to the universal organization or friendship with the word ‘satis', and the word ‘satis', it is difficult to see that the designated service mark is identical or similar to the designated service mark of this case prior to the application of the pending service mark of this case, as the designated service mark of this case, it is difficult to see that the designated service mark of this case is not identical or similar to the designated service mark of this case, so it is difficult to see that the designated service mark of this case is identical or similar to the designated service mark of consumers.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the registration of the pending service mark should be refused on the ground that it is similar to the cited service mark at the time of application. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the interpretation and application of statutes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment (whether the registration of the pending service mark is not permissible as a whole because it has no distinctiveness). Therefore, the grounds of appeal assigning this error are with merit

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Patent Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)