[거절사정][공19841.1.(719),29]
Whether or not a special distinction exists as a trademark of an applied trademark, which is indicated in the shape of "profescence", under the bottom of "profescence", and indicating "profescence" as a trademark.
The trademark of this origin, which is indicated in the shape of "cover" in the shape of "cover," and under the bottom of the trademark " Beta", is a combination of "cover", which is indicated in the shape of the alpha, in the shape of the alpha, which has no special distinction, and "cover," which is indicated in the shape of the alpha, in the name of the alpha, and "cover," which is indicated in the bottom as an English name, and is a simple and ordinary mark. Even if the trademark was already registered, there is part similar to the trademark already registered, and even if the trademark was already registered, it cannot be registered as a trademark because it is merely a trademark without a special distinction, which is merely a simple and ordinary mark.
Article 8(1)3 of the Trademark Act, Articles 8(1)7 and 8(2) of the Trademark Act
100 10 10 100
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision (Section 346) No. 346 decided January 28, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.
The ground of appeal by claimant's representative is examined.
According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below stated the composition of the original trademark in the shape of "profesta" in front, and applied for a combined trademark of Class 39 video tape or video tape presses and two kinds other than the registered trademark (registration number omitted) as designated goods on July 19, 1980, but the "profes" indicated on the upper part of the original trademark belongs to 1 alphae and indicated at the bottom of the original trademark is merely an English name, and it is nothing more than an indication of the "profes" in the original trademark in the shape of "profesta", and it is not a simple interpretation of the trademark registration number of the original trademark, and it is nothing more than an interpretation of the original trademark, which is merely a simple and common mark of the criteria for the examination of the trademark of the original trademark, and it is nothing more than an interpretation of the original trademark that does not constitute a simple interpretation of the trademark registration number of the original trademark, even if it is not clear that the trademark falls under the category 1 of the original trademark widely known in the Republic of Korea.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)