Whether the designated business is similar to the applied service mark of 11 business, including hotel business, restaurants, etc. of 112 of the business classification, and the designated business classification of the designated business (affirmative)

The pending service mark “” is the designated business is 11 business, including hotel business, restaurants, etc. in the category of 112 of the business classification. The cited service mark “” is the designated business classification is the hotel business and restaurant business in the category of 112 of the business classification, and the cited service mark “” is the same as five letters of the essential part in the cited service mark and appearance, and the cited service mark is similar to one in the name, and the essential part in the name is referred to as “gembrate” and “gembly”, and in the sense, it is similar in the sense to recognize that both service marks are the same or similar business, and thus, if both are used for the same or similar business, it is likely to mislead general consumers or traders as to the source and cause confusion.

Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

Attorney Yellow-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant, who has been involved in the hotel shock day in the ritrophe

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 91Na367 Dated July 13, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the original service mark " " " " is 11 businesses, such as hotel business, food business, etc. of the 112 category of business, and the cited service mark " " " is a hotel business, restaurant business of the 112 category of business, and the cited service mark " " is a restaurant business of the 112 category of business," and the cited service mark " is identical with five letters of the essential part in the cited service mark and appearance, and the original service mark is similar in the name "Get" and the essential part in the name "Geeman City" and is similar in the concept as "constition" or "constition" and it is similar in the sense to recognize that both service marks are used in the same or similar business, so it is justified in the original decision that there is a concern of misconception or confusion of the sources of general consumers or traders, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the misconception of facts or the similarity of similar facts arising from the violation of the rules of evidence.

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