[1] The meaning of a quality misleading trademark under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act and the standard for its determination

[2] Whether the designated goods of the applied trademark "B. S. GREN" constitute a Class 4 composite fertilizer, a net fertilizer, etc. that does not help protect the environment (affirmative)

[1] The trademark that is likely to mislead consumers as to the quality of goods under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act refers to the trademark whose composition itself has the nature different from that of the designated goods originally owned, and which is likely to mislead consumers as to that of the designated goods. Whether a certain trademark is likely to mislead consumers into quality or not shall be determined on a standard basis of the transaction norms.

[2] The term "B.S.GREN" appears to be mainly perceived by the "GREEN" portion of the "GREN", which is composed of a term used for environmental protection as a whole, and its designated goods may affect the environment such as soil, etc., such as Class 4 complex fertilizers and net fertilizers. Therefore, if the main trademark is used on the designated goods that are not helpful for environmental protection, it is likely to mislead general consumers as being of the quality that is helpful for environmental protection.

[1] Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu958 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3406), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu962 delivered on February 28, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 944), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu204 delivered on August 29, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2898) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu124 delivered on July 22, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2524), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu389 delivered on November 28, 197 (Gong198Sang, 114)

White Corco Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Doo-su, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 96Na1952 dated August 29, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant.

A trademark that is likely to mislead consumers as to the quality of goods under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act refers to a trademark, in itself, that is, the composition of that trademark is of a nature different from that of its original designated goods, and is likely to mislead consumers as to that of its original designated goods. Whether a trademark is likely to mislead consumers into quality should be determined on a standard basis (see Supreme Court Decision 97Hu204 delivered on August 29, 197).

The court below found that the trademark "B. S. GREN" (the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the third to the second to the second to the second to the second to the third to the third to the second to the second to the second to the

In addition, the existence of the eligibility for registration of a trademark ought to be individually determined according to each trademark in relation to the designated goods (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1460, Mar. 28, 1997). Thus, even if a trademark including the word “REEN” was registered as the constituent part of the previous trademark, the original trademark is not necessarily allowed solely on the ground that the trademark was registered. Accordingly, all of the grounds for appeal are rejected.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)