[1] Requirements for falling under Article 7 (1) 9, 10 and 6 of the Trademark Act

[2] The meaning of "trademarks which are likely to mislead consumers" under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act

[3] Meaning of “service mark” under Articles 7(1)4 and 2(3) of the Trademark Act, which is likely to disturb the public order or good morals, and whether the application for registration of the same service mark which imitates the comparable service mark that is not widely known and well-known in the Republic of Korea constitutes an act under Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act solely on the basis of its application for the same designated service business (negative)

[4] Whether an application of a trademark which imitates the service mark as its own service mark by a person having a special economic relation with a foreign service mark holder can be deemed as a "service mark which is likely to disturb public order or good customs" under Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act (negative)

[5] The case holding that Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act does not apply to the service mark " " ", because it cannot be deemed domestically well-known and well-known," the same service mark which imitates it does not fall under Article 7 (1) 4 of the same Act

[1] In order for a registered service mark to fall under Article 7 (1) 9 and 10 of the Trademark Act, it shall be recognized that the existing service mark as of the time of filing an application for registration of the service mark is considerably recognizable among consumers as indicating another person’s service business in Korea. In addition, in order for a registered service mark to fall under Article 7 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act, it shall be deemed that the registered service mark has a long tradition or reputation as well as that of comparable subparagraph 9 above.

[2] In order to be "a trademark that is likely to mislead consumers" as stipulated in Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, it should be known to the extent that it can be perceived as a specific person's service business or service mark if it is a consumer or a trader in general transactions in Korea at least at the time of the decision to register a registered service mark, although the existing service mark is not necessarily known or recognizable.

[3] The term "service mark" under Articles 7 (1) 4 and 2 (3) of the Trademark Act refers to a case where the composition of the service mark itself or its service mark is used for its designated service business and its meaning or content to ordinary consumers is contrary to the public order and good customs, which is the ordinary moral sense of ordinary people. Thus, if the comparative service mark is not widely known and well-known in Korea, even if the comparative service mark is applied for the same designated service business, it does not constitute Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act merely because it is applied for the same service mark which imitates the comparative service mark, and thus, it does not fall under Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act, and it does not mean that the comparative service mark is well-known and well-known domestically.

[4] It is clear that the filing of an application for a trademark which imitates the service mark as one of its own service marks by a person having a special economic relation with a foreign service mark holder is against international trust and good morals. However, all of them are considered to be a service mark which is likely to disrupt public order or good customs as stipulated in Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act. It is against the character of the mark under the Trademark Act and the territorial principle as to the scope of its protection, and thus, it is not permissible.

[5] The case holding that Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act does not apply to the service mark " " ", because it cannot be deemed domestically well-known and well-known," the same service mark which imitates it does not fall under Article 7 (1) 4 of the same Act

[1] Article 7 (1) 6, 9, and 10 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act / [3] Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act / [4] Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act

[3] Supreme Court Decision 98Hu546 delivered on November 12, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 2507)

Huzk Kim (Law Office, Attorney Kim U-American, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

Ojin Commercial Co., Ltd. (Patent Firm Multilater, Patent Attorney Park Jong-Un et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 17, 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 August 30, 2004 by the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2826 of 2003Dang2826 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the trial decision;

A. The Plaintiff’s registered service mark as indicated below (hereinafter “instant registered service mark”) against the Defendant, who is the right holder of the instant registered service mark (hereinafter “instant registered service mark”), is a mark that imitates the Plaintiff’s registered service mark as indicated in paragraph (c) below (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s service mark”) and is likely to impair public order or good customs by impairing sound commercial order and international confidence, and thus constitutes Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act. Moreover, “HOTS” of the instant registered service mark constitutes a name of the Plaintiff widely known global, and thus falls under subparagraph 6 of the same paragraph. Moreover, the registered service mark constitutes “HOTS” of the instant registered service mark, and it is highly likely for ordinary consumers to mislead or confuse the source of the service mark as well as the Plaintiff’s widely known service mark, and thus, it cannot be seen that the Plaintiff’s registered service mark constitutes the instant registered service mark at the time of its decision to invalidate the Plaintiff’s trademark registration or its registered service mark at the time of its decision to invalidate its registration.

B. Registered service mark of this case

(1) Composition:

(2) Date of application/registration: June 7, 1996/ March 27, 2002

(c) Registration number: No. 74644;

(4) Designated goods: “Kapetia business, Lestop business, accelerator service restaurant business, KONEX business, simplified restaurant business, restaurant business, restaurant business, restaurant chain business” in Chapter 112 of the former Service Industry Classification (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 83 of February 23, 1998)

C. Plaintiff’s service mark

(1) Composition: HOTSS;

(b) Services: Lestop business;

[Evidence: No dispute is raised]

2. Determination as to whether the trial decision is proper

A. Whether the registered service mark of this case falls under Article 7 (1) 6 or 9 through 11 of the Trademark Act

In order for the registered service mark of this case to fall under Article 7 (1) 9 and 10 of the Trademark Act, it must be recognized that the Plaintiff’s service mark as of the time of application is considerably recognizable among consumers as indicating another person’s service business in Korea. In addition, in order for the registered service mark of this case to fall under Article 7 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act, it should be considerably more widely known and widely known to consumers and traders as well as corresponding to the above registered service mark of this case. The registered service mark of this case must be deemed to fall under a trademark with a long tradition or reputation, and it should be deemed to fall under a trademark with a long-term tradition or reputation. For the purpose of "a trademark that is likely to mislead consumers" as defined in Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act. However, it should be known to the extent that the Plaintiff’s service mark is well known and well-known at the time of the decision on the registration of the registered service mark of this case, at least in general transactions in Korea as of the time of the decision on the registration of this case.

그러므로 과연 원고 서비스표가 위에서 말하는 주지, 저명한 서비스표이거나 특정인의 서비스표로서 널리 알려져 있었는지에 관하여 보건대, 갑 제2호증, 갑 제3호증의 1 내지 5, 7, 9, 갑 제4호증, 갑 제5호증의 1 내지 175, 갑 제6호증의 1 내지 6, 갑 제7호증의 1 내지 6의 각 기재에 변론전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1983. 4. 1. 미국에서 설립된 회사로서 플로리다 주를 기점으로 영업망을 확대해 온 레스토랑업 전문업체인데, 그 영업방식에 있어 기존의 레스토랑업이나 요식업의 서비스 형태와 다르게 이 사건 원고 서비스표가 표시된 티셔츠 등 유니폼을 착용한 젊고 성적으로 어필하는 여성(HOOTERS GIRL)을 영업장 내에 등장시켜 서빙, 댄스 등의 서비스를 제공하는 독특한 방식을 채택함으로써 주로 미국에서의 남성 고객들 사이에 원고 서비스표 및 그 사용서비스업이 알려지게 된 사실, 원고 서비스표는 1985. 2. 12. 미국에서 등록되었으며, 원고는 현재 미국 43개주를 비롯하여 미국 외 14개국에서 356개의 프랜차이즈를 설립하여 운영하고 있고, 25,000명 정도의 직원을 두고 각종 스포츠 대회를 후원하는 한편 기부금 재단을 설립하여 각 지역에 있는 자선단체를 원조하는 등의 활동을 하고 있는 사실, 원고는 제공하는 서비스를 광고하기 위하여 스포츠 카레이스, 골프 등 스포츠에 스폰서 역할을 하고 있고, "USAR PROCUP RACING", "IHRA DRAG RACING"의 카레이스 경기 및 "NGA HOOTERS GOLF TOUR"라는 골프 선수권 대회를 개최하고 있으며, "후터스 매거진(HOOTERS Magazine)"이라는 잡지를 발간하여 매장 등에 비치하여 각지에 있는 영업소 및 이에 근무하는 종업원들에 관하여 홍보를 해 오고 있고, 원고 서비스표에 관한 기사가 "뉴욕타임즈(New York Times)", "타임(Time)", "헤럴드(Herald)", "플레이보이(Playboy)", "뉴스위크(Newsweek)", "월스트리트저널(Wall Street Journal)", "데일리뉴스(Daily news)", "포브스(Forbes)", "포천(Fortune)" 등의 미국 간행물에 1990년대 초반부터 최근까지 보도되어 오고 있는 사실, 원고는 "www.hooters.com"이라는 웹사이트를 운영하고 있고 위 웹사이트에는 원고에 관한 최근기사와 함께 원고 회사의 약력, 제공되는 서비스의 특징, 내용 등이 게시되어 있는 사실, 한편 국내에서는 1995. 11. 16.자 및 18.자 연합뉴스에 "미서 남성호스티스 논쟁가열", "미 레스토랑체인점, 연방정부와 성차별 대결"이라는 제하로 남성호스티스 채용과 관련하여 원고와 미연방정부기구와의 갈등이 있다는 내용의 기사가, 1997. 7. 3.자 한국경제신문에 "섹스어필 레스토랑체인점"이라는 제하의 기사가, 1998. 11. 18.자 한국일보에 "해외비지니스…후터스 레스토랑"이라는 제하의 기사가, 1999. 11. 21.자 조선일보에 "해외뉴프랜차이즈 섹스어필레스토랑"이라는 제하의 기사가, 2000. 4. 21.자 인터넷판 네이트 뉴스에 "레스토랑 '후터스 어브 아메리카'"라는 제하에 후터스 레스토랑은 해외여행시 가 볼 만한 특이하고 흥미로운 곳이라는 내용의 기사가, 2001. 7. 23.자 연합뉴스에 "미 법조계 광고지 팩스 집단소송 논란"이라는 제하에 "불법 광고지 팩스 전송으로 1천 200만 달러 배상 판결을 받은 원고가 법원에 파산신청을 하고 항소를 제기하였다."는 내용의 기사가 각 게재된 사실, 피고를 비롯하여 제임스코리아 주식회사, T&G; 주식회사, 한라자원 주식회사 등 국내업자들이 원고 회사와 접촉하여 프랜차이즈 개설을 허가받고자 시도한 바 있는 사실을 각 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정 사실에 의하면 원고 서비스표가 미국 내에서 그 사용서비스업의 독특한 영업방식, 광고, 선전 등으로 일반수요자들 특히 남성 고객들 사이에 어느 정도 알려져 있는 사정은 엿볼 수 있으나, 국내에서는 이 사건 등록서비스표 출원일(1996. 6. 7.) 전에 2차례, 등록결정일(2002. 2. 27.)까지 7차례 간헐적으로 보도되었을 뿐이고 그 기사 내용도 해외의 화제거리를 흥미위주로 보도한 정도에 불과하여 원고 서비스표가 그 사용서비스업에 관하여 국내에서 사용되고 있거나 광고, 선전되었음을 인정할 아무런 자료가 없는 이 사건에서 일반수요자들이 위와 같은 보도기사만으로는 원고 서비스표나 그 사용서비스업을 특정인의 식별표지로 인식하였을 가능성은 매우 희박하다고 보아야 할 것이고, 그 외 원고의 인터넷 웹사이트 운영사실이나 피고나 국내 다른 업체들과 원고와 사이에 있었던 프랜차이즈 계약 협상 사실은 원고 서비스표의 사용실적이나 국내 일반수요자들의 인지도와는 직접적인 관련이 있다고 보기 어렵다 할 것이므로, 원고 서비스표나 그 사용서비스업이 국내 수요자들 사이에 주지, 저명하거나 특정인의 서비스업 표지로 널리 알려져 있었다고 보기 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the registered service mark of this case falls under Article 7(1)6 and 9 through 11 of the Trademark Act on the premise that the Plaintiff’s trade name constitutes a well-known service mark or a well-known or well-known service mark at the time of application or decision of registration of the registered service mark of this case, is without merit without further review.

B. Whether the registered service mark of this case constitutes Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s filing of the instant registered service mark is obviously contrary to public order or good customs, and thus granting the exclusive right to the instant registered service mark to the Defendant solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant registered service mark is against the order of fair competition and lacks social validity, and thus, the instant registered service mark constitutes a violation of Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act, regardless of whether the Plaintiff’s registered service mark is well known and well-known in Korea, and thus, ought to be invalidated as it falls under Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act.

(2) Determination:

Article 7 (1) 4 and Article 2 (3) of the Trademark Act refers to the case where the composition of a service mark itself or its service mark is used for its designated service business and its meaning or contents to ordinary consumers are contrary to the public order and good customs, which is the moral sense of the general public. Thus, if the comparative service mark is not widely known and low in Korea, the application for the same service mark which imitates the comparative service mark does not fall under Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act (refer to Supreme Court Decision 98Hu546 delivered on November 12, 199) and it does not fall under Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act (refer to Supreme Court Decision 99Hu451 delivered on July 9, 202). It means that it is widely known and well-known in Korea that the comparative service mark is contrary to the principle of good customs and good customs, and it is clearly contrary to the legal principles and regulations of the Trademark Act (refer to Article 7 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act or its new service mark as an international service mark.

With respect to this case, it is clear that the composition itself or its meaning of the registered service mark of this case does not violate the public order or good customs, which is the normal moral sense of the general public. As seen above, insofar as the Plaintiff’s service mark, which is the comparative service mark, is not a service mark widely known and well-known in Korea at the time of the registration of the registered service mark of this case, the Defendant’s application for the registered service mark of this case, which imitates the Plaintiff’s service mark, by itself, does not violate the public order and good customs of society. Furthermore, even if the Defendant’s representative director, who is the Defendant company’s representative director, visited the Plaintiff for several times, and negotiations on franchise with the Plaintiff, such facts alone cannot be viewed as contrary to the public order or good customs of Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act, regardless of whether the Defendant’s application for the registered service mark of this case contravenes the principles of good faith under the general civil law. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the registered service mark of this case constitutes the above part of Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act cannot be accepted.

(c) Conclusion

Therefore, the registered service mark of this case cannot be deemed to exist as the grounds for invalidation of registration under Article 7 (1) 4, 6, 9 through 11 of the Trademark Act as asserted by the plaintiff. The trial decision of this case to this purport is justifiable.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-tae (Presiding Judge)