Whether a registered trademark is a technical trademark (negative)

The term "OVAL" cannot be deemed to be a common use in our society. As such, the English language cannot be deemed to be a trademark consisting of a mark indicating the shape of the designated goods in a common way, the trademark cannot be deemed to be a trademark with the meaning of "dye type, sye type, sye type, sye type, sye type, sye type, sye type, sye type, sye type, sye type."

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

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Attorney Tae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Patent Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 231 dated March 25, 1992

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

First, we examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the records, the court below recognized that "OVAL" indicated in English among "the trademark of this case" has the meaning "indic form, scam, scam, scam-type, scam-type, and scam-type". However, in determining whether a trademark constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating a origin, quality, shape, etc. of goods under Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 190), the meaning of the trademark shall be those that can be directly informed of the trademark based on ordinary consumers, and it is not subject to consideration to determine whether it can be known only after examining or finding a prior report (see Supreme Court Decision 92Hu520 of Aug. 14, 1992). However, the above trademark cannot be deemed to have been widely used in our English society, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the general consumers or consumers of the trademark of this case are designated goods under the above legal reasoning.

Therefore, without any need to determine the remaining grounds of appeal, the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.