“The case holding that a trademark consisting of the same as the above does not constitute a simple and trace mark, and that the registration of the trademark is not contrary to the public interest.

"The case holding that "the trademark consisting of the same as the trademark does not constitute a simple and trace mark, and the registration of the trademark is not contrary to the public interest."

Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act

CNHE Co., Ltd. (Law Firm KFEL, Attorneys Kim Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2001Heo3880 delivered on January 18, 2002

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

1. The lower court determined that the trademark applied for registration of this case is a simple trademark that does not have the right to use a trademark of this case, and that the trademark applied for registration of this case goes against the purpose of prohibiting the use of the trademark of this case because the trademark applied for registration of this case is a simple trademark that does not have the right to use a trademark of this case because the trademark of this case is not an essential part of the alphical expression, but an expression of the 'C' and 'P' can be expressed in a variety of ways according to the choice of the ratio of the length of the alpha, the length of the alpha in English and the length of the alpha, etc. of the alpha, which is larger than the length of the 'C' and 'P', or that the end of the 'P' is less than the length of the alphathath, or that the 'C' and the 'P' are often a simple trademark that does not have the right to use the alphathathathathathathathathathathathatha.

2. A trademark combining the alphabba shall not be deemed a trademark consisting solely of a simple and ordinary mark even if the composition of the trademark can be understood as a simple and ordinary mark in the event that the composition of the trademark is particularly leading people's attention or a new concept is formed. While the trademark of this case composed of "C" can be recognized as being on the street "P" and "P", the above trademark is identical to the size of the word, and unlike the general method of displaying alphababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababab.

In addition, even if the above mark is registered as a trademark, until consumers recognize it as indicating goods related to a person's business, the scope of the right is limited to the mark identical or similar to the above mark, and accordingly, it can freely use the mark "CP" as a trademark in accordance with the general alpha display method or its name "Cp" as a trademark, so allowing the registration of the applied trademark of this case cannot be deemed as contrary to the public interest.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act, and the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)