B. Whether only the text portion of the registered trademark, except the figure portion, is used as the title of magazines, can be deemed as using the trademark identical to the registered trademark (affirmative)

B. Since the figure portion of the registered trademark “” cannot be deemed as having distinctiveness solely on its own, it cannot be deemed as constituting the essential part of the trademark. Thus, even if only the letter portion excluding the figure portion among the registered trademarks was used as the title of magazines, it is merely merely a modification of an additional part, not the essential part of the registered trademark, and it should be deemed as using the trademark identical to the registered trademark

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

Examining the reasoning of the original adjudication in comparison with the record of the reasoning of the original adjudication, the original adjudication rendered by the claimant without any mentioning the argument that the trademark of this case constitutes a case where the trademark of this case was not used for not less than one year in the Republic of Korea without any justifiable reason as provided by Article 45 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) and thus, the revocation should be revoked is the same as the argument pointed out.

However, according to the records of this case, upon examining the evidence in which the original trial decision was adopted, the non-party interference with the trademark of this case was registered on January 14, 1987, and a computer information magazine, one of the designated goods of the trademark of this case, was published for a monthly period under the title of "computer World" without any figure portion among the designated goods of the trademark of this case. After establishing the company which is the respondent on June 19, 1988, the trademark of this case was transferred to the respondent company and continued to publish the above magazine in the name of the respondent company, and the registration of transfer of the trademark of this case was completed on June 14, 1989. According to the above facts of recognition, the period during which the trademark of this case was not used by the trademark of this case by the claimant company from June 19, 1988 to June 14, 1989, it is evident that the period for which the trademark of this case was not used by the trademark of this case has not elapsed one year elapsed since the date of non-use under Article 3 of the former Trademark Act.

In addition, the use of the registered trademark under the above provision includes not only the use of the trademark identical to the registered trademark, but also the use of the trademark identical to the trademark of this case, which is a distinctive mark in terms of trade norms and does not impair the identity of the trademark. The figure portion of the trademark of this case cannot be deemed to constitute the essential part of the trademark because it itself cannot be deemed to have a distinctive character, and even if only the letter portion excluding the figure portion of the trademark of this case was used as the title of magazines, it is merely a modification of an additional part, not an essential part of the registered trademark, and it should be deemed to have been used.

Ultimately, the claimant's assertion that the trademark of this case constitutes a ground for revocation under Article 45 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act is without merit, and the illegality of the omission of judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit decision of the court below, cannot be deemed to have affected the result of the trial decision, and therefore, it is not reasonable

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.