거절결정(상)
Decision of refusal 205Hu636 (Trademarks)
Plaintiff
Attorney Lee In-bok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
The participation of the litigation performer in distribution;
Patent Court Decision 2004Heo4631 Decided January 14, 2005
June 16, 2006
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
In light of the records, "," and "ET" are widely used in actual life as English language representing "electronic, Internet, etc.", and where the pending service mark of this case is used for " video medical treatment service using the Internet" and "health consultation service using the Internet" among its designated service business, and the pending service mark of this case is easily connected to such meaning so that the use of the designated service mark of this case can be easily used as "the video medical service or health consultation service by using the Internet" as a whole. Thus, the pending service mark of this case is recognized as meaning "the video medical service or health consultation service by using the Internet." Thus, there are grounds for rejection of registration corresponding to the registered service mark of this case under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act.
On the other hand, the reason for the examiner's decision to refuse the pending service mark of this case is that the designated service mark of this case is "a hospital that enables the applicant to take advantage of this case". Thus, the designated service mark of this case constitutes a technical service mark if it is used for pathogen recognition business, hospital business, video medical service using the Internet, and health consultation business using the Internet. Thus, the above applied service mark of this case does not coincide with the ground for technical service mark of this case and its specific contents. However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office viewed the applied service mark of this case as a technical service mark in relation to " video medical service using the Internet", "health consultation business using the Internet", and the plaintiff also argued that the meaning of "e -" of the applied service mark of this case at the trial stage of the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board, and that the registered service mark of this case is recognized as a whole as mentioned above, it cannot be viewed as a new ground for rejection that there is a difference in the specific contents of the reasons for rejection.
Therefore, in other opinions, it becomes a new ground for rejection of the grounds for rejection corresponding to the technical service mark under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, and therefore, it becomes a new ground for rejection. Accordingly, the court below's revocation of the trial decision is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the new grounds for rejection to provide an opportunity to submit a written opinion under Article 81 (3) of the Trademark Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Kim Young-ran
Justices Park Jae-sik
Justices Kim Ge-sik-gu