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

B. Whether the “BASAM” is a technical trademark (negative)

A. The technical trademark under Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) refers to a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating in a common way the origin, quality, raw materials, efficacy, efficacy, use, quantity, shape, price, production method, processing method, method of use or market price of goods. Whether a trademark constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a technical mark shall be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark, common quality, efficacy, use, circumstances of the trade society, etc. of the designated goods. It does not constitute a trademark that can not be recognized that ordinary traders or consumers have indicated the simple quality, efficacy, use, raw materials, etc. of the designated goods.

B. In addition, the meaning of “BASAM” and the meaning of “BASAM” as a foreign language and it cannot be said that ordinary traders or consumers of the drinking industry to which the designated goods belong can easily recognize the concept thereof. In addition, it is difficult to view the applied trademark as indicating the quality, efficacy, use, raw materials, etc. of the designated goods in a common way when objectively determined in light of the common quality, efficacy, usage, characteristics of raw materials, etc. of the designated goods of the applied trademark, the circumstances of the transaction society, etc.

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1312 decided Apr. 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1508) 91Hu707 decided Oct. 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2729) 92Hu124 decided Jun. 23, 192 (Gong192, 2282)

[Defendant-Appellant] Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na1420 dated January 30, 1992

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below maintained the original decision rejecting the application for registration of the original trademark, on the ground that the meaning of "BASM" of the original trademark constitutes a mark indicating the nature (quality, use, efficacy, raw materials) of the designated goods in the case of using it for the designated goods of the original trademark, such as the amount of negligence, algonis, yellow, red, melting tea, etc., since it constitutes a mark indicating the nature (quality, use, efficacy, raw materials) of the designated goods, it cannot be registered pursuant to Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 190).

However, the technical trademark under Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act refers to a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating in a common way the origin, quality, raw material, efficacy, efficacy, use, quantity, shape, price, production method, processing method, method of use or market price of goods. Whether a trademark constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a technical mark shall be objectively determined in light of the concept of the trademark, the common quality and efficacy of the designated goods generally held, the circumstances of the transaction society, etc. It shall not be said that general traders or consumers cannot be recognized as indicating the simple quality, efficacy, use, raw material, etc. of the designated goods.

기록에 의하여 살펴 보면, 본원상표인 “BALSAM”이라는 단어의 의미는 각종 사전에서 “방향성 약용향료, 향유, 발삼나무(방향성수지를 생산하는 각종나무), 봉선화류, 위안물 및 진통제”, “바늘잎나무에서 분비되는 끈끈한 액체로서 물에 녹지않고 알콜과 에테르에 잘 녹는 성질을 가지며, 그 주성분은 송진으로서 접착제, 향료등 약용과 공업용으로 쓰이는 수지”등으로 정의하고 있으나, “BALSAM”은 외국어로서 국내에서 흔히 사용되는 어휘가 아니어서 지정상품이 속하는 음료업계의 일반거래자나 수요자들이 그 관념을 쉽게 인식할 수 있다고 할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라 위와 같은 “BALSAM”의 의미와 일반적으로 본원상표의 지정상품들인 과실액, 오렌지주우스, 녹차 등이 가지고 있는 공통된 품질, 효능, 용도, 원재료 등의 성질 및 거래사회의 실정 등을 감안하여 객관적으로 판단할 때 본원상표는 지정상품의 품질, 효능, 용도, 원재료 등을 보통으로 사용하는 방법으로 표시한 것이라고 보기도 어렵다 할 것이다.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for the registration of a technical trademark, and thereby pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)