Whether the applied trademark ‘s diagrams + RESOLVE’ is technical (technical) trademark where the designated goods are taxable (affirmative)

In light of the English spreading level of our country, the trademark applied for trademark " RESOVE is a trademark consisting of a combination of black diagrams with "RESOLVE" and the word "RESOLVE" with the meaning of "RESOVE", "melt, melt, melt, etc., if it is used for the designated goods of this country, it is directly sense that "in the event it is used for the taxation of the designated goods of this country, it is a taxation that dissipateds, etc." to ordinary consumers. On the other hand, the figure portion is merely an auxiliary or incidental one that does not create a special concept or offset or absorbs the concept of the above letter portion, and thus, it is only a trademark with the overall designated goods of this country with a mark indicating the character (quality, efficacy) in a common way.

Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1698 (Gong1994Ha, 2107) (Gong1994, 2107) and 97Hu389 decided Nov. 28, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 114)

Lekart Annbn (Law Firm Central Patent Office, Attorneys Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 97Na232 dated February 25, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") is a trademark consisting of a black figure and a word "RESLVE", "RESOVE", "melting, melting, melting, etc., and in light of the English spread level of our country, the trademark is a "tax" that is a "in the event that it is used in the taxation as designated goods, it can be easily decomposed to ordinary consumers", and on the other hand, the part is not a supplementary or incidental one that produces a special concept or absorbs the concept of the above letter, and it is merely a supplementary or incidental one that is not a supplementary or subsidiary one that produces a special concept, or it is merely a trademark with a mark expressing the character of the designated goods (quality and efficacy) in a common way, and thus, it constitutes a trademark that refuses the registration of the original trademark pursuant to Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act. In light of the records, the court below's decision is justified in light of the above legal reasoning.

The registration of the applied trademark should be independently determined by the trademark law of the Republic of Korea, not by the registration of the other country, but by the registration of the other country. On the other hand, the Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from those of this case, and it is not appropriate to invoke them.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)