Whether the applicant trademark “POWEREN” has distinctiveness as designated goods, such as the amount of tax, water rain, etc. (negative)

Of the main trademarks consisting of the following English letters in Korean, the Korean language part among the main trademarks consisting of "POWER CCEN" is indicated in Korean language. The English language part is a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality or efficacy of the designated goods by means of force, efficacy, effect, etc., and the English language "CLEN" is clean, and the English language "CLEN" is clean, and its main trademark is a clean effect, such as a clean and clean effect. If it is related to the designated goods, it is directly sense that the main trademark is a trademark consisting of a mark indicating the quality or efficacy of the designated goods. Thus, Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1390, Apr. 13, 190).

Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act

Dongyang Chemical Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 88Na1057 decided November 30, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

With respect to the grounds of appeal by the applicant (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed)

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the original trademark is composed of English letters with "POWER CCEN" written with "POWE" written with "POWE" written with "POWE" written with "POWE" written with the English language, "POWE" with the meaning of force, effective examination, effect, etc., and "CLEN" with the meaning of "CLEN" as clean and clean, and it is related to the designated goods such as clean power, clean effect, and clean effect. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the registration of the original trademark, since the original trademark has no distinctiveness solely with the quality or efficacy of the designated goods, and its registration has no distinctiveness. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the registration of the original trademark, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the registration of the trademark under Article 8 (1) 13 of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1934, Jan. 13, 1999).

In addition, the theory of the lawsuit also attacks the part of the judgment on the similarity between the applied trademark of this case and the cited trademark of this case, but the above judgment is merely an additional judgment. Therefore, it is not reasonable to return to the assertion of the grounds of appeal that does not affect the original decision.

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)