1. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below rejected the decision of the court below on the ground that the trademark "CORP." is a combination trademark consisting of diagrams and English and has no distinctive character as it represents "a company, corporation, company, etc." and the other "SYTSMM" means "aisy" and "disy" means "all goods and strue good". Thus, in relation to the "computer design device" of Chapter 39, which is the designated goods, the main trademark is directly reduced to "computer design device for computer," which is a good system, and it expresses the quality of the designated goods. On the other hand, although the shape of the main trademark is added to the main trademark, the whole composition of the main trademark is extremely small and independent, and thus, the trademark cannot be deemed as a special appeal under Article 38 (1) of the Trademark Act, which rejected the registration of the original trademark's claim under Article 38 (1) of the Trademark Act.

2. Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act provides that "a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating in a common way the origin, quality, raw material, efficacy, use, quantity, shape, price, production method, processing method, method of use, or time of the goods shall not be registered. Such things are necessary for the distribution process of the goods, and it is necessary for anyone to use them, and thus it is not possible to use them exclusively for a specific person because they want to use them. In addition, if such a trademark is permitted, it is difficult to distinguish them from others' like goods. Thus, whether a trademark constitutes it shall be determined according to the transaction situation of the goods in Korea. Even if the trademark seems to suggest or emphasize the quality, etc. of the designated goods, it shall be interpreted that it cannot be recognized as indicating the mere quality, etc. of the designated goods to ordinary traders or consumers when considering the overall composition of the trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Hu8888, Apr. 27, 198; 208Hu3186963, Aug. 16, 19883.

However, according to the records, the original trademark is located in the upper center of the English text "daisy's shape (or fireworks) with the top centering on the English text "daty's unique figure, and its lower part is a trademark combining the English text "SYTSM COMP." with a small size of language "SYTSM COP.", among them, it is merely a trademark representing the applicant's trade name, and its essential part is "daisy" with a figure attached to it. According to the records, "daisy" is mainly a name of plant belonging to the daty's daty's daty's length, and it is difficult to recognize that there are many designated goods such as (3) daty's exclusive use of the trademark with a high quality mark, and (7) datum's exclusive use of the designated goods can not be seen as a daty's own designated goods with a view to daty's use of the designated goods, such as a high quality mark.

Nevertheless, it is reasonable to argue that the original trademark is merely an indication of the designated goods quality, and the original trial decision is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for non-registration under Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, or in the understanding of the purport of "disy". Thus, it is reasonable to discuss this issue.

3. Therefore, without examining the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office appellant, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)