[1] In a case where a geographical name is not a mark that can deliver immediate geographical sense to ordinary consumers even if it is included, whether it can be deemed as a "real geographical name" under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act (negative), and in a case where a conspicuous geographical name is combined with an tolerance mark, business type mark or technical mark without distinctiveness, whether the application of the above provision is excluded (negative in principle)

[2] The case holding that the applied service mark " cannot be deemed as "service mark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name" as provided by Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act, unless "Yinjin" cannot be deemed as a conspicuous geographical name

[1] The purport of Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act stipulating a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name as a requirement for the denial of trademark registration is to allow anyone to use the trademark and to refuse to grant a specific person the exclusive right to use the trademark because it is not obvious and well-known. Thus, even if a geographical name is included, if it is not a mark capable of delivering immediate geographical sense to ordinary consumers, it shall not be deemed a conspicuous geographical name. Meanwhile, even if the word constituting a trademark is combined with a tolerance mark, business type mark or technical (technical) without a conspicuous geographical name, such combination does not result in a new concept beyond the original conspicuous geographical name, or a new trademark is entirely new, or a trademark is combined with a geographical name and a tolerance mark, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that a new distinctive character is not granted.

[2] The case holding that the applied service mark " " cannot be deemed as a service mark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name," as provided by Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act, insofar as it is difficult to readily conclude that multi-Korean consumers or traders are directly belonging to the Chinese city, so long as it cannot be seen as a conspicuous geographical name

[1] Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1682 delivered on August 22, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2887) Supreme Court Decision 98Hu1518 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong2000Sang, 62) Supreme Court Decision 2000Hu181 Delivered on April 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1288)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Kim Jae-sub et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

September 24, 2009

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 11, 2009 on the case No. 2008 Won7840 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The pending service mark

(1) Date/application number: November 7, 2007 / 41-207-29169

(2) Marks:

(3) 지정서비스업: 서비스업류 구분 제43류의 ‘냉면전문식당업, 냉면전문식당체인업, 냉면음식점경영업, 간이식당업, 관광음식점업, 극장식주점경영업, 레스토랑업, 무도유흥주점경영업, 뷔페식당업, 서양음식점경영업, 셀프서비스식당업, 스낵바업, 식당체인업, 식품소개업, 음식조리대행업, 음식준비조달업, 카페업, 카페테리아업, 칵테일라운지서비스업, 한국식유흥주점경영업, 한식점경영업’

B. The procedural background

(1) On July 11, 2008, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on the ground that the service mark of this case is a service mark consisting of a conspicuous geographical name and constitutes Article 6(1)4 of the Trademark Act, since the term “Seojin” refers to a city located in the Republic of Korea, Hunam-do. Thus, the patent application service mark of this case constitutes a conspicuous geographical name and constitutes Article 6(1)4 of the Trademark Act.

(2) On June 11, 2009, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board filed an appeal against the above decision of refusal with the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (2008 Won7840). However, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the appeal on the ground that the designated service of the applied service mark of this case constitutes a service mark recognized as a conspicuous geographical name, and in particular, the designated service business of the applied service mark of this case is a "Semanjin-jin-jin-jin-jin restaurant business". In light of the fact that the designated service business of the applied service mark of this case is a "Secheon-gu restaurant business" and the designated service business of the applied service mark of this case, it is a general tendency for ordinary consumers or traders to recognize it as a "Secheon-gu, which is related to the Chinese dust."

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the instant pending service mark, “Yjin” cannot be viewed as a geographical name of “Yeojin”, which is a Chinese urban name, to ordinary domestic consumers. Thus, the instant pending service mark cannot be deemed as a service mark with a conspicuous geographical name. As such, the instant pending service mark is unlawful.

B. Determination

The purport of Article 6(1)4 of the Trademark Act stipulating a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name as a passive requirement for trademark registration is to allow anyone to use the trademark and to refuse to grant a specific person the exclusive right to use the trademark because of its apparentness and well-knownness. Thus, even if a geographical name is included, if it is not a mark capable of delivering immediate geographical sense to ordinary consumers, it shall not be deemed a conspicuous geographical name (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1682 delivered on August 22, 1997). Meanwhile, even in cases where a trademark consisting of a non-distinctive mark, a trademark consisting of a trademark consisting of a trademark consisting of an original conspicuous geographical name, a tolerance mark, a type of business or a technical meaning beyond the original conspicuous geographical name or a new concept, or a trademark consisting of a trademark consisting of a geographical name and a new trademark cannot be seen as being granted since it does not constitute a new geographical name or a new trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da20280, supra.).

With respect to the instant case, since the term "brine air" among the pending service marks of this case was hardened as a tolerance mark referring to a kind of air conditioners in Korea as a whole, there is room for applying Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act to the pending service mark in this case where the remaining part of the service mark falls under a conspicuous geographical name.

그런데 ‘천진’이 현저한 지리적 명칭에 해당하는가에 관하여 보면, 을 제1, 2, 4, 5호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 의하면, 인터넷 한자사전 또는 백과사전 등에 중국 허베이성(하북성)에 있는 중앙 직할시인 ‘천진(톈진)’이 한글로 ‘천진’으로도 표기되어 있고 중국의 3대 또는 4대 도시로 소개되어 있는 사실, 국내의 여러 언론매체의 인터넷 기사 등에 위 중국 도시가 ‘천진’으로 표기되어 있고 위 도시의 명물 음식이 소개되어 있기도 한 사실, 국내의 만두음식점들 중에 ‘천진’이 포함된 상호를 쓰고 간판에 ‘천진’으로 표기한 예가 있는 사실이 인정된다. 그러나 위와 같은 사실만으로는 국내의 일반 수요자나 거래자들에게 ‘천진’이 중국의 도시명으로 직감된다고 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

오히려 갑 제5 내지 9, 36 내지 41호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 의하면, ‘천진’은 한자 표기에 따라 여러 가지 뜻이 있는데, 그 중 ‘천진’으로 표기되는 ‘천진’은 ‘세파에 물들지 아니한 자연 그대로의 참됨’을 의미하는 단어로서 ‘천진하다’, ‘천진스럽다’, ‘천진난만하다’, ‘천진무구하다’와 같은 형태로 자주 쓰이는 사실, 중국의 도시명 ‘천진’은 국내의 신문기사나 지도 등에서 중국식 발음인 ‘톈진’으로도 자주 표기되고 있고 특히 중등 사회 교과서 등에서 ‘톈진’으로 표기되고 있는 사실, 인터넷 국어사전 중에는 ‘천진(천진)’을 ‘톈진’의 잘못된 표기라고 설명하고 있는 예도 있는 사실, 근래에 국내의 주요 신문사들은 중국의 지명을 한글로 표기할 때 원칙적으로 중국어 표기법에 따라 표기하도록 되어 있는 외래어표기법에 따라 중국식 발음으로 표기하는 경향을 보이는 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 또한, 갑 제10호증의 1, 2, 갑 제11 내지 35호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 출원서비스표의 출원 전에 국내에서 사진업 등에 관하여 ‘천진스튜디오’라는 서비스표가 등록결정된 예가 있고, ‘청송함흥냉면’, ‘청송평양냉면’, ‘장성갈비’, ‘진주김치’ 등과 같이 지명에도 해당하고 다른 의미도 가지는 단어가 관용표장 등과 결합하여 상표등록된 예도 다수 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 이러한 점들에 비추어 보면 다의어인 ‘천진’이 국내의 일반 수요자나 거래자들에게 중국의 도시명으로 직감된다고 단정하기 어렵다.

Ultimately, as long as the “Yinjin” cannot be seen as a conspicuous geographical name, the pending service mark cannot be deemed as a service mark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit, and the instant trial decision that differs from this conclusion is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Kim Jong-hwan (Presiding Judge)