The case holding that the applied service mark " " is a technical (technical) mark where it is used for a designated service business related to Buddhist or generally accepted ideas."

The case holding that the service mark consisting solely of the mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of the service in a common way, in the case where it is used for the designated service business related to the doctrine or the general sense, which consists of the 's major shouldering, or the meaning of the 's group or organization' and the 's meeting or organization' and the applied service mark consisting of the 'Council' and the 'Council' and the 'Council' composed of the 'Council' and the 'Council' in its Korean reading.

Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

The Korea-U.S. Research Society (Patent Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

December 24, 2004

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 30, 2004 on the case No. 2004 Won228 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the instant trial decision

[Evidence: evidence No. 4, evidence No. 1 to No. 4]

A. Details of the pending service mark

(1) Application number: 42-2002-00277

(2) Date of application: December 6, 2002

(3) Marks:

(4) Designated service business: (1) Management of temples and research institutes, such as seafarers and teaching staff, and management of temples and research institutes, and (2) Operational investigation and social welfare business in Korea and abroad. (3) Publication business for dissemination of ideas (not including the classification of service business under Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act.

B. Details of the instant trial decision

Article 6 (1) 3 and 7 of the Trademark Act, and Article 10 of the same Act was applied to the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office on December 24, 2003 on the ground that the pending service mark constitutes a mark ordinarily indicated in the nature of the designated service business, and that the designated service business is unclear, and the plaintiff filed a request for a trial for dissatisfaction after correcting the designated service business. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal reviewed the above request for a trial as 2004 won28, and on September 30, 2004, the pending service mark did not correspond to Article 10 of the Trademark Act by the above amendment. However, the mark is a combination of "Tidae, which is an irregular trademark, attached to a meeting or organization," and its character is usually indicated in the designated service business of this case, which is an irregular business, and it is inappropriate to apply Article 6 (1) 3 and 7 of the Trademark Act to the above request for a trial on the ground that it is inappropriate to apply the above request for a trial on the ground that a specific person's monopoly.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the pending service mark of this case is a non-commercial term that cannot be found in advance and that it does not fall under Article 6 (1) 3 and 7 of the Trademark Act, since it is the name of the Plaintiff, an incorporated foundation, which is the foundation that was registered on May 19, 1971 and has been under the direction and supervision of the Minister of Culture and Tourism, and has been engaged in his duties for more than 40 years, since it is a non-commercial term that has been difficult to find it in advance, and (2) it is established in order to realize the intention of granchising with the participation of 33 people representative of the nation in the declaration of the previous independence.

B. Whether the pending service mark is a technical mark

However, the pending service mark of this case is a character mark consisting of three persons as one of the above parts, such as the "Manman Society", and the following parts consisting of "Manman Society". According to Gap evidence 1-1, "Manman" means a group or organization with the meaning of "Manman," and "Manman" means a group or organization with the meaning of "Manman," and its members are both those who are based on the designation of sentence delivery and education. Considering that the daily language of our country is the right of Chinese culture, one of the religious services widely disseminated in our country is used as one of the above parts, and even if it is not a general consumer, the service mark of this case can be reported and used at least one of its meaning, and it is not necessary to use the registered service mark of this case as a mark or service mark of this case, and it is not necessary to use the registered service mark of this case as a mark or service mark of this case, and it is not appropriate to use the designated service mark as a mark or service mark of this case.

3. Conclusion

Then, without considering whether the pending service mark cannot be registered in violation of Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, and further whether applying Article 6 (1) 3 and 7 of the same Act simultaneously is legitimate, the decision of this case is just in its conclusion and therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is without merit.

Judges Lee Jae-hwan (Presiding Judge)