Criteria for determining whether a trademark has indicated the shape, etc. of the designated goods

Whether a trademark indicates the shape of the designated goods or not shall be determined objectively in consideration of the concept that the trademark has, the relationship with the designated goods, the social situation of the transaction, etc.

Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

1. The case where a trademark holder is a trademark holder's trademark holder's trademark right holder's trademark right holder's trademark right holder's trademark right holder

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office trial ruling No. 347 of the 1984, May 30, 1985, or trial ruling No. 347

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the trademark "SUPE" is a trademark consisting solely of the English language, and the trademark duration renewal application for the trademark right registration is filed with the type other than the television receiver No. 39 of the product classification as designated goods. Even if "SUPPPPPPPPE" is not a word with a fixed meaning, "SUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP" is a machine, light, etc. that is viewed as "SCOE" and "SCOPE" is a machine, light, etc. that generally sees "SUPE", and it is a trademark that indicates the shape of the designated goods, and thus it is not possible to renew the registration under Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act because it is a trademark with the meaning of "TV receiver, etc. which seems to be a screen."

Whether a trademark indicates the shape of the designated goods or not shall be objectively determined by considering the concept of the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the business social situation, etc., as stated in the theory of lawsuit. Thus, the above recognition and determination of the court below's decision to the same effect is justifiable, considering the records, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the trademark law, and there is no reason to believe that the precedents of the party member at the time of the lawsuit do not constitute an appropriate precedent in this case, unlike this case. Thus, there is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to Articles 8(2) and 20(2) of the Trademark Act, even if a trademark falls under any of Article 8(1)3 of the Trademark Act, such as a trademark indicating the shape of the designated goods, it can be renewed if the trademark has been used before the application for renewal of the trademark, and if the trademark has been recognized remarkably among consumers. According to the records, the claimant claims that as a result of the use of the original trademark before the application for renewal of the trademark, consumers are clearly recognized that the original trademark is a trademark of the claimant. Thus, even if the original trademark is a trademark indicating the shape of the designated goods, the court below should have deliberated on whether the original trademark is well recognized among consumers as a trademark as a trademark, as alleged by the claimant, and should have judged whether the original trademark is renewed for the duration of the original trademark.

Nevertheless, without any deliberation and determination as to this point, the court below's decision that the original trademark constitutes Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, as seen earlier, rejected an application for the renewal of the term of trademark rights for the establishment of the original trademark only by misunderstanding the legal principles on the renewal of the term of trademark rights, incomplete deliberation, and omission of judgment, and affected the trial decision.

3. Therefore, the original trial decision shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the appellate trial office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-il (Presiding Justice)