The case holding that the part of “INTRISA” is a technical mark indicating the quality, etc. of both horses in consideration of the overall composition of the challenged mark “”

Article 51 of the Trademark Act

Jinia Co., Ltd. (Attorney Mah-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Practical Tech Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Jeong Byung-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2005Heo890 Decided April 6, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplement submitted after the expiration of the period) are examined.

In light of the records, it is difficult to view the part of "INTSA" of the challenged mark as indicated in the judgment of the court below as ", and it is difficult to view that consumers are directly aware of the meaning of the climatic pattern, pattern, pattern, etc., appearing at both horses. However, considering the overall composition of the challenged mark, the part is recognized as a mark, and the part "INTRASA" is distinguished from the part "BAS EALE, which indicates that both horses were composed only below the part, and is composed of two horses," and it is not the specific part of the challenged mark to confirm the scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of scope of goods, etc., even if consumers do not directly use the part of the challenged mark as a mark, the part of the challenged mark cannot be considered as the specific part of the trademark.

Therefore, the part of the "INTSA" of the challenged mark is a technical mark that represents the quality of both horses, and even if the challenged mark has "INTSA" identical to the registered trademark of this case, the court below is just in holding that the challenged mark does not fall under the scope of the right of the registered trademark of this case. There are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of technical marks, inconsistent reasoning, incomplete hearing, omission of judgment, etc. as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)