[1] The case holding that "knife sales agent business, ston sales agent business, video storage system sales agent business," and "computer programming business, data processing business, and saf business" are similar types of business

[2] The case holding that service mark "Tex" and "Tex system of a corporation" are similar

[1] The case holding that the designated service business of the applied service mark is a type of service business or a similar type of business in light of computer program programming business, computer operation and program development business, data processing business, error business (category 112 of service classification), etc., and it is clear that the designated service business of the cited service mark registered by the earlier application is closely related to the computer and its contents are related to the computer, and in light of the method of providing the service, the general distribution structure and post management of the computer or program, the recognition of general customers, and the nature and circumstances of the business as agency business, etc.

[2] The case holding that, in light of the similarity between the applied service mark and the cited service mark, it is difficult to view that the term "INC", as the term "company, etc., has no distinctive character as the term "company," and the term "SYTSMINC," and only the existence or absence of the word "system," "SYTSMINC," is different from each other when the two service marks are comprehensively observed, and the word "system, SYTSM," and the word "system, system, system, etc., are widely used as the term "system, system, etc." and the word "system, system, etc.," which is the subject of the applied service mark, is not widely used, and thus, it is difficult to regard that the word "INC" as the word "company, etc.," which is an English person, has no distinctive character as the word "company, etc., and eventually, it is similar to both service marks in its essential part to observe them as a whole, objective, and attackly, and thus, it is likely to cause confusion between general consumers and consumers to use the same service mark.

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1012 delivered on February 27, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1116) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Do1793 delivered on June 16, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2670) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu678 delivered on December 23, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 678) Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1671 delivered on February 17, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1471), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2357 delivered on June 13, 197 (Gong197Ha, 2038)

Inteex System (Patent Attorney Shin Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na1980 decided November 30, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the second ground for appeal

According to the records and relevant laws, the designated service business of the pending service mark of this case is a knife sales agent, scner sales agent, video storage system sales agent (service classification No. 112). The designated service business of the cited service mark registered by the earlier application (No. 1617 of May 14, 1992 of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, No. 1617 of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, hereinafter referred to as "personal service mark") is a computer programming business, computer operation and program development business, data processing business, scamba business (category No. 112 of the classification of categories), etc. It is evident that the contents of the service are closely related to the computer. In light of the method of the provision of the service, the general distribution structure and post management of computer or program, the recognition of ordinary traders, the nature of the business as agency business, etc., the two service businesses should be regarded as the same or similar type of business.

The recognition and judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation as to the similarity of designated service business as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal on this point

2. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the similarity between the pending service mark and the cited service mark of this case can be seen as distinguishing between the existence of a figure of a square type when the two service marks are comprehensively observed, and only the existence of the word "system, SYETMINC" and the word "system," which does not create any special name or concept and does not have any unique shape to recognize its distinctiveness. Meanwhile, the word "system, SYESM" is widely used as terms "system, structure, system, system, etc." and the word "system, etc." which are the subject of the service of this case, are not widely used, and it is difficult to see that the word "a photographr, kniffr, slicker, video storage system, etc." which are the subject of the pending service mark of this case, has no distinctive character as meaning "company, etc.", and therefore, if it excludes such non-distinctive parts, both service marks are identical to the essential part, and thus, are likely to mislead consumers into the same and similar source of service business.

In the same purport, since both service marks are similar to each other, the decision of the court below that rejected the registration of the pending service mark under Articles 7 (1) 7 and 2 (2) of the Trademark Act is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of the service mark as alleged in the ground of appeal. The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)