[1] Criteria for determining whether a service mark constitutes a technical mark under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act

[2] The case holding that a registered service mark "spawalo-spawal" with a designated service business as "family service business" constitutes a technical mark

[1] Whether a trademark constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of goods under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act in a common way shall be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark, the designated goods’ relationship with the designated goods, the circumstances of the transaction society, etc. This legal doctrine likewise applies to service marks under Article 2(3) of the Trademark Act.

[2] The case holding that the registered service mark "hirried doctoral doctor" is a technical mark consisting solely of marks indicating the quality, use, efficacy, etc. of domestic service business in a common way, with the recognition that the designated service business as "family service business" and the two words "hirried doctoral doctoral doctoral doctoral doctoral doctoral doctoral doctoral doctoral doctoral doctoral doctoral doctoral doctor" are used for the designated service business

[1] Articles 2(3) and 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act / [2] Articles 2(3) and 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu2595 Decided January 26, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu2246 Decided April 14, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu2786 Decided July 28, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu452 Decided March 15, 2007

Plaintiff

Defendant

Patent Court Decision 2006Heo10593 Decided April 19, 2007

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

Whether a trademark constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of goods under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act in a common way shall be objectively determined by taking into account the concept of the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the circumstances of the transaction society, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Hu2595, Jan. 26, 2006; 2005Hu2786, Jul. 28, 2006). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies to a service mark under Article 2(3) of the Trademark Act.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the Defendant’s registered service mark (registration number No. 75986) of this case is a service mark consisting of the word “spawn” consisting of two words “spawn” and “spawn” consisting of “spawn,” and “spawn,” and the term “spawn,” in a transaction society, is commonly used as the word “spawn,” and “spawn,” and the term “spawn,” which is commonly used as the word “spawn, going out, and going out,” and is widely used in the field of domestic service business, which refers to “spawn, going out, and going out,” and it is reasonable to view that the registered service mark of this case constitutes a technical mark consisting of “spawn in sending people (in particular, going out to work by sending people)” when it is used in the designated service business.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the registered service mark of this case does not constitute a technical mark on the ground that the registered service mark of this case may suggest the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of the designated service business, but it is difficult to view it as being indicated to an extent that it can be sense, and thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the technical mark, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)