(a) Criteria for determining whether a trademark consisting solely of a mark (technical mark) in a common way of indicating the nature of the designated goods;

(b) The case holding that the registered trademark is a technical mark;

A. Whether a trademark consisting solely of a mark ordinarily indicating the nature of the designated goods or not shall be objectively determined from the perspective of ordinary consumers and traders considering the concept of the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the circumstances of the transaction society, etc., and it shall not be determined from the perspective of public notice by a specialized institution as classified by administrative convenience or from the perspective of experts in the product industry.

B. Of the registered trademarks, the term “sulphy” of the Yellow Paper, which is the Korean language expression “sulphy” means so-called gold, money, and sulphy, etc., but it can be interpreted that ordinary consumers and traders are precious metal which is not gold or gold products among the designated goods, and it can be interpreted as directly indicating the raw materials and quality of the designated goods. Since the term “sulphy” is a sealed name as a word used under the store’s name, the term “sulphy Party” has no distinctive character. The term “sulphy” in the registered trademark is composed of letters near the Chinese body, but it cannot be viewed as a word “sulphy” and it cannot be seen as a word “sulphy” and it cannot be seen as a word “sulphy” and it cannot be seen as a word “sulphy” as a word “sulphy” and it cannot be seen as a word “sulphy” as a part of the registered trademark, even if ordinary consumers with academic knowledge to some extent.

The case holding that it cannot be seen.

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

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee

Patent Attorney Shin-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Patent Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 89Hun-Ba346 dated March 15, 1991

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. For its reasons, the original trial decision is composed of 1 kinds of 4, precious metal and its products (the whole of the products specified in this Chapter) which do not belong to the category 1, 3, and 9. Of these, 1, 1, 3, 3, 4, 4, 500, 1, 500, 500 and 9, 1,0000, 1,0000, 3,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00.

2. However, the issue of whether a trademark consisting solely of a mark which ordinarily indicates the nature of the designated goods shall be determined objectively from the perspective of ordinary consumers and traders considering the concept possessing the trademark, relationship with the designated goods, the circumstances of the trading society, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 90Hu465, Jan. 25, 191). It shall not be determined in accordance with the public notice of a specialized institution or from the perspective of experts in the manufacturing industry divided into administrative convenience. Of the registered trademark, "Yeng" means a gold, money, or ion of light, but it can not be interpreted as being a gold or gold figure, not from among the designated goods, so long as it is difficult for ordinary consumers and traders to see that it is a gold or gold figure, not from among the designated goods, because it is difficult to see that it is a gold or yellow figure, and since it is a gold or yellow figure, it is difficult to see that this part of the registered trademark itself is a gold or yellow figure, it cannot be seen as a gold or yellow figure.

Ultimately, although the registered trademark of this case constitutes a mark (technical mark) indicating the quality of raw materials under Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act in a common way, the court below judged that the registered trademark of this case does not fall under the above, unlike the purport of the above, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles under Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the special identity of the trademark, which affected the conclusion of the decision. The appeal for this point is with merit.

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)