[1] The meaning of an interested party entitled to file a petition for an invalidation trial on the registration of service mark and the standard time for determining whether to correspond to it (=time of adjudication)

[2] The case holding that there is a benefit of lawsuit seeking revocation of a trial decision, since legal interest to revoke a trial decision is not extinguished due to the circumstances after the trial decision, since it is difficult to view that there was an agreement between the parties on the lawsuit since the fact that the unfavorable trial decision received in the patent trial procedure continues to exist effectively and explicitly, and the intention to use the registered service mark was expressed explicitly

[3] The case holding that the registered service mark " " does not constitute "a service mark which does not distinguish between consumers as to whose business it indicates a service business" under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[4] The meaning of "trademarks which are likely to be contrary to the public order or good customs" under Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act

[5] The case holding that the registered service mark " " constitutes "a trademark which is likely to disturb the public order or good customs" under Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act and thus constitutes "a non-registered service mark

[1] Article 71 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 86 of the Trademark Act, Article 186 of the Patent Act, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [4] Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 8190 of Jan. 3, 2007) / [5] Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 8190 of Jan. 3, 2007)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Hu240 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1992, 312), Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu584 Delivered on August 21, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2120), Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu3291 Delivered on September 14, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1764), / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3318 Delivered on May 28, 200 / [4] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu860, 877, 884 delivered on April 21, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1293), Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu7884 Decided September 28, 205 / [307Hu20884 decided May 28, 2005]

Plaintiff 1 and seven others (Law Firm Barun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong and four others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2005Heo961 Decided July 11, 2007

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Patent Court. All of the Defendant’s appeals are dismissed.

The plaintiffs and defendants' grounds of appeal are examined together (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

(a) Whether the person is an interested party in the invalidation of registration;

An interested party entitled to file a petition for an invalidation trial on the registration of a service mark means a person who used or currently uses a service mark identical or similar to the registered service mark for the same or similar designated service business, or who carries on the same kind of service business as the registered service mark designated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Hu59, Mar. 22, 198; 2001Hu584, Aug. 21, 2001); and whether a person is an interested party should be determined at the time of the trial decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Hu240, Nov. 26, 1991; 2005Hu3291, Sept. 14, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the plaintiffs who engage in the same service business as the defendant are interested parties entitled to file a petition for invalidation trial on the registered service mark of this case, and the circumstances after the defendant's trial decision was rendered cannot be considered. Thus, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiffs are interested parties entitled to file a petition for invalidation trial on the registered service mark of this case, and there is no violation of law as

B. Whether a lawsuit seeking revocation of the trial decision has been filed

As long as a party against whom a trial ruling was rendered in a patent trial remains valid, there is a benefit in legal action seeking the revocation of the trial ruling, barring special circumstances, such as the extinction of legal interest to revoke the trial ruling due to the subsequent circumstances.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the plaintiffs have a valid trial decision which was disadvantageous to the patent trial procedure, and the plaintiffs expressed explicitly and repeatedly that they did not intend to use the registered service mark at the original stage cannot be deemed to have reached an agreement on the lawsuit between the parties. Therefore, the plaintiffs have a legal interest to seek revocation of the trial decision of this case. Therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal by the defendant.

A person shall be appointed.

C. Examining the record in light of whether the registered service mark of this case constitutes the registered service mark of this case and other non-distinctive service mark, the registered service mark of this case (registration number No. 96318) is a service mark consisting of the right-hand figure and the Korean “Korea Bank,” and the “Korea Bank,” among which, “Korea,” is a service mark consisting of a combination of the two pages. It is difficult to recognize the distinctiveness of the mark as a mark because it is commonly used by anyone such as “a word used in this case’s right-hand figure and the Korean language “Korea Bank,” “a personal name name name name name name name name name name name name name name name name name name name name (including that he listens to it, or that he listens to it, and it is difficult to recognize a new distinctive character of the part as a combination with “Korea Bank,” “a word used in this case’s designated service business,” and it is difficult to form a new distinctive character or form a new distinctive character from the part in this case’s name.

However, the above figure is in the shape where the upper part of the white part in the form of yellow is coming to the upper part above the upper part, unlike the lower part, and the shape is cut to the upper part above the upper part, and as a whole, the entire color and concentration control so as to make the light smooth, and the light spreads by controlling colors and concentration, and it is not a simple and ordinary form, so the registered service mark of this case does not constitute an independent service mark that does not distinguish from the text. Thus, the registered service mark of this case does not constitute a service mark in which it is not recognizable for consumers under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act to indicate the service business related to anyone's business due to its distinctiveness of the figure portion.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the registered service mark of this case, including "Korean bank", in determining the grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs, since the registered service mark of this case falls under Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 8190, Jan. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same) and thus, the registered service mark of this case, including "Korean bank", can not be registered as a trademark on grounds that it falls under Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 8190, Jan. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same) and cannot be registered as a trademark on the designated service mark of this case. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the registered service mark of this case.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act provides that "a trademark which is contrary to the public order or good customs" shall not be registered. In this context, "a trademark feared to be contrary to the public order or good customs" refers not only to a case where the composition of the trademark itself or the meaning or contents that the trademark may violate the public order or good customs of the general public when used on the designated goods, but also to a case where the act of using the trademark upon the registration of the trademark violates good customs such as fair goods distribution order or international trust and morality (see Supreme Court Decision 97Hu860, 877, 884, Apr. 21, 200), and if the use of the trademark infringes on the public interest of the society, it shall not be permitted as being contrary to the public order.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the prior meaning of the word “us”, which constitutes part of the registered service mark of this case, has already been seen in the judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal. This word is an essential word to the general public to the extent that the use of the word is restricted or its meaning is confused with its meaning, such as “us company”, “us Dongdong,” etc., and it is widely frequently and widely used in ordinary daily life (in the case of referring to ’Na’), and it is not used only in a limited area, but also in a certain area without any restriction on the subject, location, field, ideology, etc., and it is the most universal and basic personal name in our language, and if it is confused with its meaning, it is essential to the general public to the extent that universal daily life is hindered. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that any person is free to use the word without any restriction, and that it belongs to the general public’s personal interest and without any restriction on its function and proportion in the daily life as seen above.

However, in the case where the above two terms are used in combination with a service mark bank in ordinary terms, which is a part of the text of the registered service mark of this case, "Korea bank" (hereinafter "service mark bank") is almost identical to the daily term "Korea bank (hereinafter "Japan") which represents one's own related bank, and it is difficult to distinguish them by itself, and its usage is also in a similar situation, it is not possible to avoid confusion as to whether the term "one of the above two terms can be used in common terms with the service mark bank, and if it does not cause such confusion, it is necessary to add a separate explanation or substitute the word "Korea" with the word "Korea," and in particular, it seems that the person engaged in the same type of business would be likely to suffer considerable impediment to performing his duties because such inconvenience and restriction would be aggravated. As a result, the use of the registered service mark of this case, including "Korea bank", should be deemed to be in violation of the order of fair distribution of the registered service mark of this case, and thus, the use of the registered service mark of this case constitutes a registered service mark of this case, which is in violation of public order.

Nevertheless, since the registered service mark of this case does not fall under Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act, the court below dismissed the plaintiffs' claim against "banking business, international financial business, loan loan business, broom card issuing business, credit card issuing business, credit card issuing business, trust business, trust business, securities business, investment brokerage business, investment and financial business, financial management business, financial analysis business, financial consulting business, financial information business, loan purchasing financing business, mortgage financing business, insurance agency business, securities investment consultation business, home banking business" among the designated service businesses of the registered service mark of this case, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the plaintiffs' ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the defendant's appeals are dismissed, and without further review of the plaintiffs' remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the plaintiffs among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)