All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 6(1) of the Trademark Act provides, one of the cases in which a trademark cannot be registered, “a trademark other than those as referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 6, which does not enable consumers to distinguish whose goods it indicates in connection with a person’s business.” This means that a trademark which does not fall under subparagraphs 1 through 6 of the same Article, even if it does not fall under any of subparagraphs 1 through 6 of the same Article, may not be registered.

In addition, whether a trademark without distinctiveness constitutes a trademark shall be objectively determined taking into account the concept of the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the circumstances of the trade society, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu2951, Dec. 27, 2012). (B)

We examine in light of the above legal principles and records.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the evidence admitted by the court below, the word “ Montreal” or “MONESSORI” is widely recognized and used as referring to the learning materials and teaching equipment applying a specific early childhood education theory or its theory among general consumers as of November 2, 1998, which was at the time of the decision to register the respective registered trademarks listed in No. 4, No. 7, and No. 8 of the judgment of the court below (trademark No. AR) and the trademark registration No. 8 of the court below. 1998.

On the other hand, among the designated goods of each of the above registered trademarks, the finished goods, such as "Syrings, syrings, plastic syrings, and metal syrings, are closely related to teaching materials and instruments for early childhood education or early childhood education.