The original adjudication shall not be limited to a trademark marked with a strong and solid "stamper" on the basis of a four-dimensional test, and unlike the trademark marked with a "stamper" as a trademark, any concept cannot be reflected in the state where only the original trademark is marked with a "stamper". Thus, on the ground that the original trademark is merely a simple mark and cannot be registered, the original ruling of rejection is justified on the ground of the provision of Article 8 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act.

However, the legal principles of Article 8 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act do not mean that a trademark cannot be registered if it is a simple and ordinary trademark, or if it is a trademark consisting solely of a simple or ordinary trademark, it shall not be registered. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the court below is a simple trademark, and that the court below did not make any deliberation and determination as to whether it is a trademark consisting solely of a common trademark, and it is not illegal in the misapprehension of the legal principles of illegal provisions, incomplete deliberation, and lack of reasoning.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)

The transfer of a judge of the Supreme Court is impossible to affix a name and seal as a retirement.