A. Purpose of legislation under Article 8(1)3 of the former Trademark Act

B. Whether the applicant trademark “a list” is a technical trademark with books, magazines, leaflets, etc. as designated goods (affirmative)

A. The reason why Article 8(1)3 of the former Trademark Act provides that a technical trademark cannot be registered is because the technical mark is often used in the transaction of goods, so it is difficult to distinguish the technical mark from other goods, and even if the family product identification function exists, it is not reasonable in the public interest to allow anyone to exclusively use the trademark only to a specific person on the market of goods.

B. The applied trademark, which is a written trademark in Korean, is generally recognized as a book that contains the trade name, address, telephone number, etc. of stores constituting a business building, in light of books, magazines, and leaflets, which are the designated goods. Thus, the applied trademark is merely composed of a mark indicating in a common way the character of the designated goods, such as efficacy, use, etc., and thus constitutes Article 8(1)3 of the former Trademark Act.

Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

(a) Supreme Court Decision 86Hu190 Decided August 18, 1987 (Gong1987, 1467), 90Hu21 Decided September 28, 1990 (Gong1990, 2169), 90Hu1312 Decided April 23, 1991 (Gong191, 1508);

Patent Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 90Na536 decided April 30, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act provides that "No trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating in a common way the origin, quality, raw material, efficacy, use, quantity, shape, price, production method, processing method, method of use, or time of the product shall be registered." This is not only a case where it is used generally in the transaction of the product, but also a case where it is difficult to distinguish the product from other products. Even if there is a family product identification function, it is not reasonable for a certain person to exclusively use the product in the market because it is not appropriate for the public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu190 delivered on August 18, 1987). The trademark of this case is a character of the character of the designated product in Korean, such as the name, address, telephone number, etc. of a commercial building, and thus, it falls under Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act.

Therefore, although the original adjudication is somewhat insufficient at the time of its explanation, it is reasonable in accordance with the above legal principles that the original rejection of the registration of the trademark of this case was maintained as it is, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding of legal principles, such as the theory of the lawsuit. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)