Whether a trademark, such as “a shopping mall”, “a shopping mall”, or “a shopping mall”, is a technical trademark that does not have the effect of “a living information shopping mall” under the registered trademark (affirmative)

The trademark called "meral family register", "meral family register" or "meral family register" is a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the efficacy, function, and use of designated goods as provided for in Article 51 subparagraph 2 of the Trademark Act in a common way, and thus, the effects of "meral family information shopping mall" of the registered trademark shall not extend to each of the above trademarks.

Article 51 Item 2 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Hu75 delivered on October 28, 1986 (Gong1986, 3120) 89Hu1356 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong190, 268)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na47149 delivered on February 27, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Although the Defendants entered the commercial guide who issued a trademark " commercial book", "commercial book" or "commercial book" in addition to the trade name, address, telephone number, etc. of the commercial guide, the color and photograph of the commercial guide, and the advertisement inducing the goods and purchase of the business sector, the records of this case show that the main contents of the commercial guide are stated in the trade name, address, telephone number, etc. of the commercial guide, and therefore, it is not different from the fact that the users see it as the "book containing the trade name, address, telephone number, etc. of the stores constituting a certain commercial building".

Therefore, each of the above trademarks used by the defendants constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating in a common way the efficacy, function, and use of designated goods under Article 51 subparagraph 2 of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990, but the current Trademark Act applies pursuant to the main sentence of Article 2 of the Addenda of the Trademark Act), and thus, the plaintiff's trademark right registered as "living information shop" is not effective for each of the above trademarks used by the defendants, and there is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

Even if the above registered trademark claimed by the Plaintiff as being infringed is similar to the above registered trademark of the Plaintiff and its title, concept, and appearance, the effect of the above trademark right of the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to extend to each of the above trademarks of the Defendants, which are identical only to the trademarks indicated in a common way in the nature of the efficacy, use, etc. of designated goods, under Article 51 subparagraph 2 of the Trademark Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Hu75, Oct. 28, 1986; 89Hu1356, Dec. 12, 1989, etc.). Therefore, the argument on this point is without merit.

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.