[거절사정(상)][공2001.6.15.(132),1292]
[1] The case holding that since the part of "Link" of the applied trademark "Aceink, etc. using a computer or a printer, etc. constitutes a technical mark indicating the quality and efficacy of the designated goods, it is also deemed that the distinctiveness of the goods of the other goods is weak since there are many trademarks including the word "LINK" or the word "LINK" as to the goods of the category of goods to which the designated goods belong at the time of the application of the applied trademark
[2] Whether the applied trademark "Aceink" and the cited trademark "ACE + Es" and "Link" are similar (negative)
[1] The case holding that since the part of "Link" of the applied trademark "Aceink, etc. using a computer or a printer, etc. constitutes a technical mark indicating the quality and efficacy of the designated goods, and as at the time of the application of the applied trademark, there were many trademarks including the word "LINK" or the word "LINK" as to the goods of the category of goods to which the designated goods belong, the distinctiveness of the goods of the other goods is weak
[2] Since "Aceink" has a weak distinguish between "Ace" and "Link, its constituent constituent part, and its distinguish between "Ace" and "Link" from other trademarks, it cannot be an independent part in determining the same as other trademarks, and "Aceink" consists of a relatively easily visible word in 5, and considering the tendency of ordinary consumers or traders who intend to memory the trademark through a simple name or concept, it is difficult to see that the trademark applied for registration is called "Ace" or "Link" separately from the two parts of "Ace" or "Link with weak distinguish between the trademark applied for registration and the trademark "ACE +" and "ink" as a whole, and the trademark is not identical with the trademark in comparison with the trademark as a whole, so the concept and concept of the trademark applied for registration are not identical, compared with the concept and concept.
[1] Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act and Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act
[2] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2804 delivered on October 13, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2693), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu874 delivered on April 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1051), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu287 delivered on January 5, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 468)
Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Lee Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Patent Court Decision 200Heo785 delivered on August 11, 2000
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the trademark of this case as applied on June 3, 1998 is classified into 3 different goods, 'KIN 9', 'KIN 9', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 1', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 3', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 2', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 3', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 3', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 1', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 9', 'MIN 9', '2', 'K', '4.
In light of the records, it is somewhat inappropriate for the court below to conclude that the trademark "Link" part of the applied trademark of this case is a technical mark indicating the quality and efficacy of the designated goods and that the trademark "Link" part of the applied trademark of this case constitutes a technical mark indicating the quality and efficacy of the designated goods at the time of the application of the applied trademark of this case and it has been registered or announced publicly. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the distinctiveness of the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case is weak, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to technical marks as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.
The Supreme Court precedents, which are contrary to the grounds of appeal, are different from this case, and thus, are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the applied trademark of this case and the cited trademark applied earlier and registered.
“A” C E
In contrast to the trademark 1, the trademark of this case has a distinctive character that can distinguish between the trademark of this case and the trademark of this case (registration No. 1 omitted) and the trademark 2 "Link" (registration No. 2 omitted), and as such, the trademark of this case has a weak distinctive character that can distinguish both the trademark of this case from the trademark of this case and the trademark of this case, so it cannot be an essential part independently in determining the same similarity with the other trademark, and the "Aceink" consists of a word that is relatively easy to detect the trademark of this case, even if considering the tendency of ordinary consumers or traders who want to memory the trademark by using a simple name or concept, the trademark of this case is separated from the two parts of "Ace" and "Link," and it is difficult to see that the trademark of this case and the trademark of this case are identical with the trademark of this case, and therefore, the trademark of this case should be compared with the concept of "Ace" or "Link," and the trademark of this case should not be compared with the concept and appearance of this case.
In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just (However, it is a separate issue whether the trademark of this case cannot be registered because it has no distinctiveness in relation to the designated goods) and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks as alleged in the ground of appeal.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)