[거절사정(상)][공1998.4.1.(55),911]
[1] Whether the trademark "PLASVION" constitutes Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act because it constitutes only a mark with no distinctive character (affirmative)
[2] Whether a trademark registration is subject to the application of foreign registration practices in determining whether the trademark is registered (negative)
[1] The term "PLASVION" is simply a word trademark which is a simple combination between "PLASMA" and "VISON". Although the term "PLASMA" is a professional trademark that only finds it in advance or can be recognized by only experts in the related industry, it is difficult to recognize its distinctive nature as it is a mark in relation to "electronic display device by the FLMA method" and "TV receiver by the FLIN by the FL method" as the designated goods, and it is merely an English short language at a middle school level, so it is difficult for ordinary consumers or consumers to recognize its distinctive character as it is merely an English language at a middle school level, so it is weak in relation to the designated goods, and it does not create a new concept or form a new distinctive character by that combination, and therefore, the trademark applied for trademark has no distinctive character in relation to the designated goods, and therefore, it constitutes a trademark that does not enable general consumers to recognize the goods related to the business under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.
[2] Whether registration of an applied trademark should be independently determined by the trademark laws of the Republic of Korea, but the registration of another country should not be invoked.
[1] Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Articles 6 and 7 of the Trademark Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1477 delivered on May 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1882), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2241 delivered on June 27, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2370), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1701 delivered on March 14, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1617), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu64 delivered on May 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2272), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1971 delivered on May 26, 1997 (Gong195Ha, 195Ha, 2972), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1987 delivered on June 16, 199, Supreme Court Decision 97Hu19879 delivered on June 16, 1997)
Gaba Gaba Gaba (Patent Attorney More than the Patent Attorney et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na2973 dated December 27, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Examining the reasoning of the decision of the court below in light of the records and relevant laws, the court below is hard to recognize distinguish between the trademark in this case and the trademark in this case is merely a simple combination of the English language "PLASMA" and the "VISN". Although the term "PLASMA" is a professional trademark that only the designated goods can be found in advance or the experts in the related industry can be recognized, it is hard to recognize that the trademark in this case constitutes an electronic display of the designated goods in relation to the "PLASMA" and the "TV receiver by the business method", and it is merely an English language of the level of middle school level and thus ordinary consumers or consumers can be understood as "luminous light, image, and exchange". Thus, the trademark in this case is not a new concept or a new distinctive character formation by the combination, and thus the trademark in this case has no distinctiveness in relation to the designated goods. Therefore, the trademark in this case is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the trademark in this case's non-distinctive relation with the designated goods.
Although the trademark applied for trademark in this case was partially designed as an English person, it cannot be deemed that the extent of its transformation is a unique letter or special method to the extent that it is recognized as a separate distinctive character, in addition to the meaning of general letter, and on the other hand, Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act does not ask whether the trademark is a mark indicating "general method of use, such as the nature of the designated goods."
In addition, whether the registration of an applied trademark should be independently determined pursuant to the Korean Trademark Act, and it does not go through the registration precedents of other countries (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu818, Jan. 21, 1997). The precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from those of this case, and thus it is inappropriate to rely on this case.
All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)