A. Criteria for determining whether a trademark is a technical trademark

(b) Whether the registered trademark "Sastroke" is a technical trademark;

A. Whether a trademark is a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the efficacy, use, etc. of the designated goods in a common way should be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the ordinary consumers or traders’ understanding and awareness of the trademark, the situation of the trade society, etc.

B. Most of the general consumers can easily recognize that the front and rear part of the registered trademark "Samac" and the front and rear part of the registered trademark "Samac" are in Korean language as the English language is sound or the word "mark." The combination of the so-called "Stch" mainly used by the general public is the so-called "mark's pregnant woman's her pregnant woman's her pregnant woman's her pregnant woman's her part of the uniforms. It is a fact that the woman's general consumers are almost aware of all the pregnant woman's her part of the her mother's her part, and if the respondent advertises her goods with the phrase "Streck's her part with a stringch's her part so that it can be understood that the above trademark's her part can be used for the same purpose as the trademark's her part with the effect of removing the her her part of the her mother's her part.

Article 8(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) (see current Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act), Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Hu33 delivered on February 10, 1987 (Gong1987,436), 92Hu315 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992,2672), 92Hu353 delivered on September 25, 1992 (Gong192,303)

Attorney Park Jae-sik, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant in Korea

Furthermore Men and Cambodian Patent Attorney next to 1 other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Trial Decision 92Da123 delivered on August 31, 1993

The original adjudication shall be reversed. The case shall be remanded to the Appellate Trial Office.

We decide on the grounds of appeal by claimant.

The court below determined that the trademark of this case consists of nine items, such as skin 12, compact 12, compact 18 October 18, 198 after the claimant filed an application on September 12, 198 as designated goods, and registered trademark on October 18, 198. The English language "SRETCHK" consists of a sound or a word in Korean. The English language "SRETCH" means a word outside, long, short, short, short, short, and short, "MAK" means "the mark, mark, marks, scores, etc." but the term "MARK" is not widely used for the designated goods of this case in violation of Article 12 No. 12, "SRES" and "MATRK" as a multiple type of goods of this case, and thus, it cannot be seen that the defendant's prior use of the trademark of this case can not be seen as being used for the designated goods of this case or its prior use of the trademark of this case.

However, whether a trademark is a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the efficacy, use, etc. of the designated goods in a common way shall be objectively determined in light of the concept of the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the degree of ordinary consumers or traders' understanding and understanding of the trademark, the circumstances of the trade society, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Hu34, Jun. 28, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 86Hu33, Feb. 10, 1987; 92Hu353, Sept. 25, 1992). According to relevant evidence and records, the designated goods of the trademark of this case belong to the cosmetics and lessons of Chapter 12 of the classification of goods, and the trademark of this case consisting of women who have undergone higher education from most of the general consumers, and thus, it is easy for the general consumers to understand that the trademark of this case is an "marnite mark" and the latter part of the trademark of this case, and thus, it can be easily recognized that the general consumers use of the trademark of this case's.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the trademark of this case does not constitute a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of designated goods in a common way. Thus, the original decision does not contain any error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the trial decision. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)