B. Whether the trademark “NECTR” using cosmetics as designated goods falls under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act

B. The English language "NECTR" in the applied trademark itself derived from the "new stocks (new stocks)" derived from the gysology. However, goods recognized by the applied trademark from the perspective of ordinary consumers today's general consumers are limited to "sacrine, sacrine, sacrine, and sacrine". No product is in a common relationship with the product belonging to the same system in terms of materials, use, appearance, manufacturing methods, sales, etc., which are designated goods of the applied trademark, or materials, materials, etc., or cosmetics (fence, enjoyment, fashion, etc.) which are designated goods of the applied trademark. Even in cases where the two are in the same liquid shape and the two are traded in containers such as cans or bottles, even if the two are clearly distinguishable in the container or at the selling place, so it should be viewed that there is no possibility that the product itself or quality of the cosmetics, due to the applied trademark, among the general consumers of the cosmetic in light of trade norms.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the trademark "NECTR" is often used for the term referring to "acap drink", etc. as a trademark consisting solely of the English language with the meaning of "accom, sap, etc.", and that the designated goods of the original trademark are frequently used by the general consumers of the Republic of Korea, and the designated goods of the original trademark are in liquid form such as "acap beverage" as "acap beverage", and the designated goods of the original trademark are likely to be mistaken or confused with the designated goods of the original trademark as the kind of beverage when considering the actual condition of the goods traded in containers of cans, bottles, etc., such trademark is likely to cause mistake and confusion with the designated goods of the original trademark in relation to the designated goods. Accordingly, the court below maintained the original condition that rejected the application of the original trademark by applying Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act.

However, the term "trademarks which are likely to mislead consumers as to the quality of goods" under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act refers to the trademark, in itself, which is likely to mislead consumers as to its nature different from its original nature. In order to deem that there is a concern that a specific trademark may mislead consumers into quality, it shall be determined in accordance with the trade norms by determining general consumers as to whether there is a concern as to whether there is a concern as to whether there is a concern as to whether there is a concern as to whether there is a concern as to whether there is a concern as to whether there is a concern as to whether there is a concern as to whether there is a concern as to whether there is a concern as to whether there is a concern as to whether there is a concern as to whether there is a concern, such as the general consumers' relation or not with goods recognized by the trademark and the goods where the trademark is used, for example, the relation of a certain economic relation between the goods which belong to the same system and the goods where the trademark is used, such as materials, appearance, appearance, method and sale.

However, in light of the records, the English language "NECAR" of the main trademark itself derived from "new stocks (new stocks)" derived from the gysology, but goods recognized by the original trademark from the perspective of ordinary consumers today's general consumers are "sash drinks, saves, and extract," and products which are designated by the main trademark can not be jointly related to products belonging to the same system in terms of materials, use, appearance, methods, sale, etc., or materials or materials belonging to the same system, and even if the two are in the same liquid shape and the two are to be traded in containers such as cans or bottles, even if they are clearly distinguishable in the container or at the selling place, so it shall be deemed that there is no concern that the quality of the original product itself or its quality may be mistaken between the general consumers of the cosmetics in light of trade norms.

Therefore, although the original trademark is not deemed to be "a trademark likely to mislead the quality of goods" under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act in relation to the designated goods, the court below judged that it constitutes such "a trademark." Thus, the original decision contains an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of the above provision of the Trademark Act or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is reason 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)