B. Whether the trademark “application trademark” falls under Article 6(1)3 or 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act

B. The applied trademark is a combination trademark marked "CLINI QUE" and "ARS EIXR" as a horse between the three lines, and its appearance, concept, and title cannot be viewed as a natural spit in the general trade. Thus, in cases where the applied trademark is separated from the applied trademark to observe it as "ARMATS EIXR" at the bottom, it means a flavoring, etc., and "ELIR" means a flavoring, non-flavoring, and it can be extracted from the meaning of "flab control" through the combination, because it can only be seen as a prior mark that is not widely used domestically, and it can only be seen as a "flavoking" as a "flavoking" of the applied trademark. However, since it can only be seen as a prior mark that is used domestically.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the original trademark is recognized as the meaning of "fink's governing substance" and that in relation to cosmetics, such as "sk's picture", the designated goods are recognized as directly indicating the nature (quality, efficacy, and use) of the designated goods, and that the designated goods of the original trademark may be recognized as a governing substance, and that there may be misconceptions about the quality of the goods or to deceive consumers as the designated goods of the original trademark may be recognized as a governing substance, and therefore, the court below maintained the original condition that refused the application for the original trademark by applying Articles 6 (1) 3 and 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act.

However, in determining whether a trademark is a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of goods under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act in a common way, or a trademark likely to mislead consumers as to the quality of goods under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, the meaning of the trademark shall be that the trademark can be reported directly, and that the meaning of the trademark shall be that of a general consumer, and that it shall not be considered only when it is examined or examined or reported in advance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Hu636, Nov. 13, 1992; 92Hu2304, Apr. 27, 1993).

In light of the records, this part of the trademark is a combination trademark marked as a horse with three straight lines "CLINI QUE" and "ARS EMATR" and its appearance, concept, and title cannot be viewed as a natural sparance in the general trade. Thus, when the original trademark is separated from the original trademark to observe the original trademark as "ARMATICS EIXR" at the bottom, it means a flaf, etc., and "ELIS" means a flaf, etc., and "ELIXR" means a flaf, flaf, and flaf, etc.," and it can be seen as a "flaf, flaf, flaf, and flaf," as a result of the combination, that it can be seen as a "flaf government" as a "flaf," but this can only be seen as a "flaf," a prior trademark widely used domestically, and thus, it can only be seen as a "MALI" designated product.

Therefore, on the premise that with respect to the concept of the original trademark, the court below held that the trademark is a trademark which consists of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, and use of the designated goods in a common way, or that the designated goods of the original trademark may be perceived as a ten-year governing contract, and thus, it is difficult for the court below to judge that the trademark is a trademark which misleads consumers about the quality of the goods or might mislead consumers as to the meaning of the trademark and the criteria for determining the contents of the trademark, and therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, the original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)