Article 2 Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of the Cable Radio and Television Act stipulate that “The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows: 1. Cable Radio and Television Service: Refers to the service of transmitting images, sound or data through the installed cable radio and television system for direct viewing and listening by the public;……3. Cable Radio and Television System Operator: Refers to a business which provides cable radio and television services by law; 4. Channel Provider: Refers to a program and advertisement supplier business which authorizes, under a specific name, program and advertisement transmission to cable television operators.” Article 2 Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of the Satellite Broadcasting Act stipulate that “The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows: 1. Satellite Broadcasting: Refers to the transmission of sound or visual signals, via satellite, for audio and visual reception by the public; …….3. Direct Satellite Broadcasting Service Operator: Refers to a business which uses its own or others' facilities to provide satellite broadcasting services and directly charge subscribers for the service; 4. Satellite Broadcasting Program Supplier: Refers to a legal entity which transmits programs or advertisements, via satellite, to service providers (including cable television program broadcast system) or wireless radio/television business providers.” There are differences between a cable television system operator and a channel provider, or a satellite television system operator and a satellite broadcasting program supplier. System operators install equipment to transmit images, sound or data for direct viewing and listening by the public, while channel providers transmit programs via the equipment of the system operators for viewing or listening by the public.

However, those differences are insufficient to support the claim that the services of the cable television channel providers do not belong to class 38 “Cable Television Broadcasting, Television Broadcasting”. The defendant provides TIPO’s “Cross Reference Index” and “The Nice Classification and Annotations” as explanations regarding class 38 and 41 (see vol. 2 at 29-32). Class 38 includes services provided to communicate with others via equipment such as television, computer and radio. The main features of this type of services are the provision of communication methods and means, rather than contents or themes delivered during the process of communication activities. The production, planning, distribution and publishing of the contents of communication activities belong to services in class 41. However, the production, planning, distribution and publishing of television programs are different from the services of broadcasting programs via cable or wireless equipment to the public. The planning, production, distribution and publishing of programs by the channel operators are services belong to class 41. But broadcasting the completed programs to the public via cable or wireless equipment is a kind of service which allows communication between the equipment providers and others and is thus the provision of communication methods and means instead of the production of videos and television programs claimed by the defendant. There is no service related to “broadcast programs via cable or wireless television to the public” in class 41 of “Cross Reference Index” provided by the defendant. (In addition to class 4109, services related to “entertainment” in class 4106 is also incompatible because there are only services related to on-line music, videos and games in class 4106. These services are different from the services provided by cable television channel providers.) “Cable television broadcasting service, television broadcasting service” in class 38 of “Cross Reference Index” does not clearly exclude cable or wireless channel operators from providing services to the public via the equipment of others (system operators), nor does class 38 restrict the provision of services on one’s own communication devices. Therefore, the defendant’s goods and services classifications fail to show that services of cable/wireless television channel providers do not belong to class 38.

As a result, since the defendant fails to clearly define the goods and services classifications, what the defendant claims in this case (that is, class 38 “Cable Television Broadcasting, Television Broadcasting” is restricted to services provided by “cable/wireless radio television system operators” but exclude services provided by “channel providers”) is not reasonable.

cable radio and television, satellite broadcasting, channel, cross reference index, Nice Classification and information, classification for goods and services