Furthermore, Kokccacom (Law Firm Yang Hun-Hun, Attorney Man-Ba, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

March 30, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on November 2, 2010 on the case No. 2009 Won6500 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The applied trademark of this case

(1) Date / Number of the application: May 14, 2008

(b) Marks: (Colored Trademark)

3) Designated goods: Category 30, coffee, coa, cococoa, rice, ice, accident, sago, substitute coffee, grain and grain-processed products from cryms, bread and ices, ices, ice-related, honest, bring, balke, crym, ice-raising, sacracker, marsens, marsens, marsens, straws, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, etc.

B. Details of the instant trial decision

Although the Plaintiff filed an application for the trademark registration of this case, the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal of registration on the ground of Article 6(1)3, 4, and 7 of the Trademark Act. The Plaintiff filed a petition for an appeal against the foregoing decision of refusal, but the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition on the ground that the trademark falls under Article 6(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

2. The parties’ assertion and the issues of the instant case

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) In determining the existence of distinctiveness of a trademark, the trademark as a whole ought to be determined by deeming it as one of the composition of the trademark. The trademark applied in this case is not a mark generally used as a trademark combining letters “GEORGGGA” and a different tea bate figure in a unique shape, on the basis that the shape of coffee is in a sound form. It does not constitute a trademark inappropriate to allow a specific person to monopoly in the public interest because “GEOGA” is not a mark combining a unique tea boom, and it is not a major origin of coffee.

2) A number of trademarks registered as a whole with a tea marnife figure with coffee as designated goods is recognized as a whole as distinctive, and the trademark of this case is already registered in Japan, so its registration should be permitted.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) Similar to the trademark applied in this case, a trademark consisting of diagrams indicating the raw materials, use, etc. of designated goods and a conspicuous geographical name with no distinctive character constitutes trademark under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act.

2) A trademark consisting of a conspicuous geographical name, such as the instant applied trademark, such as the trademark, and a trademark consisting of a non-distinctive figure with “GEORGIA” constitutes trademark law Article 6(1)4.

3) As seen in the instant application trademark, each combination of non-distinctive parts constitutes trademark under Article 6(1)7 of the Trademark Act, since the trademark, as a whole, has no distinctive character.

C. Key issue of the instant case

Whether the trademark of this case falls under Article 6 (1) 3, 4, and 7 of the Trademark Act.

3. Determination

A. Whether the trademark of this case constitutes Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act

1) Criteria for judgment

In light of the purport of Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act that a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, use, etc. of goods in a common way shall not be registered. In light of the purport of Article 6(1)3 of the same Act, a trademark consisting solely of a technical mark such as the quality, use, etc. of goods, and, even if any other distinctive character, symbol, figure, etc. is combined, if such combination is merely an incidental or auxiliary one, or if it is recognized as a trademark such as a nature, etc. as a whole, it shall be deemed as a trademark consisting solely of a mark such as the quality, etc. as prescribed in the above provision (see Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1698, Jun

Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act provides that a technical mark shall not be registered, because the technical mark is necessary for the distribution of designated goods in the transactional world to which the designated goods belong, it is necessary for anyone to use it, and it is necessary for the public interest request that a specific person cannot use it exclusively, and if such trademark is allowed, it is hard to distinguish the source from the goods of the same kind (see Supreme Court Decision 92Hu124 delivered on June 23, 192, etc.).

2) Specific review

The applied trademark of this case is a combination mark consisting of the English trademark "GEORGI" and "GEORGI" and "GEOGI" and "GEOGI" is a conspicuous geographical name indicating the name of the Republic of Korea or South East East Asia (see Supreme Court Decision 85Hu106, Feb. 25, 1986). Although it is not a major origin of coffee, it constitutes a part which is not a designated product, but a general consumer or a trader is not distinctive because it constitutes a "catch" or "catch" mark, which is not a "catch" or "catch, and thus, it constitutes a "catch" and a "catch of tea and tea," which is merely a "catch or tea," and it constitutes a "catch of tea and tea," and thus, the trademark of this case is not a specific feature of the trademark of this case, since it is not a "catch or tea," and the trademark of this case can be seen as a "catter.

In relation to this, the Plaintiff asserts that registration of the applied trademark of this case should be permitted by applying the same criteria to the trademark of this case, which is already permitted to be registered in Japan, on the designated goods such as teas, etc. as a whole, because the trademark of this case, which is combined with the figure of tea teas, should be determined by applying the same criteria. However, since the registration of the trademark of this case should be determined by applying the same criteria to each trademark in relation to the designated goods, the registration of the applied trademark of this case should not be allowed just because the trademark of this case is registered in a combination of teas, and further, considering the detailed attitude of the trademark of this case, most of the trademarks of this case, including tea teas, are inferred to the extent that the degree of design of teas exceeds the distinctiveness of the letter, or have a unique form. Thus, the above argument by the Plaintiff is without merit since the registration of the trademark of this case, in light of the trademark of this case, the registration of the trademark of this case should be determined individually by the pertinent country as to the origin of the goods or consumers.

B. Whether the trademark of this case falls under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act

1) Criteria for judgment

Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act provides that a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name is a passive requirement for trademark registration. The purport of the provision is to allow any person to use the trademark freely and to no specific person grant any exclusive right to use the trademark on account of its apparentness and well-knownness (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1682, Aug. 22, 1997, etc.). Furthermore, Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act applies to a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name, its abbreviation or map. Thus, other distinctive letters, symbols, diagrams, etc. do not fall under the original subparagraph, but if such letters, symbols, or diagrams are merely incidental or auxiliary, or if overall geographical name is recognized as a conspicuous geographical name, it falls under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Hu12737, Jun. 13, 200).

2) Specific review

As seen earlier, the English language “GEORGIA” in the applied trademark of this case constitutes a conspicuous geographical name, and it also appears as seen earlier that the added shape of coffee and tea teas and the figure of tea teas are limited to a simple supplementary part that has no distinctive character on the ground that the degree of designization is weak. Accordingly, the applied trademark of this case is merely a trademark that has no distinctive character on a conspicuous geographical name or has a very weak figure, and thus, it still constitutes Article 6(1)4 of the Trademark Act.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the trademark applied in this case constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a technical mark under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act and a conspicuous geographical name under Article 6(1)4 of the same Act, the trademark applied in this case ought to be rejected without further determination as to whether it falls under Article 6(1)7 of the Trademark Act, which is a supplementary provision applicable in cases that do not fall under any of the above provisions.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the trial decision of this case, which is the same conclusion, is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)