Whether a trademark can be registered as a trademark "LECTRDYN"

The original trademark "EECTRODYN" is merely a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the efficacy, use, and method of use of goods under Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, which combines "ELECTRO" and "DYN", a combination of the meaning that "electrics" are "electrics," and thus, it cannot be registered as trademark.

Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

The Patent Attorney Ba-man, Counsel for the defendant-appellant, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office No. 1286, Jan. 30, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below maintained the original decision that the original trademark is merely an additional combination of "DYN" part without any meaning with the original trademark, and thus it cannot exclude similarity with "ELECTRO". Thus, the original trademark is a main part of "ELTRO", and its meaning can be recognized as "electric or electrical weapons, or a uniform operating with power" if it is used in a unit of weapons, which are the designated goods, the ordinary customers or consumers can use it as "the method of using the designated goods or use, or its function or efficacy," and therefore, it seems that the original trademark is an expression of the original trademark's original trademark's use or quality display, and it is not proper to take measures such as "the original trademark's use or quality display," and Article 8 (1) of the Trademark Act provides that the original trademark's original trademark's use or quality display, which is a combination with the original trademark's original trademark's original use or quality display, but it does not affect the original trademark's original use, quality or efficacy of the goods.

Ultimately, the original decision of the court below is just and correct as the purport of the decision is, and there is no error of law such as theory of the original trademark, and the designated goods are fixed in terms of the original trademark "ELECTRODYN", and the designated goods are fixed in terms of the static electrical system, not the electricity or electronic form, and "ELECTRODN" as "ELTRO" as the ELTRO" in English. It is not reasonable to discuss that the ELECO is the essential part of the original trademark as the independent opinion that it is erroneous that the ELTRO is the essential part of the original trademark.

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 Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)