Whether the "P&H" of the applied trademark is a special distinction

Unless the trademark applied for registration is indicated by connecting the "P" and the "H" to the "P" and the "P" as in "P&H", it cannot be deemed that there is a special distinction, which is the requirement for trademark registration, and therefore, it cannot be registered as trademark unless it is merely a simple and ordinary mark as referred to in Article 8 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act.

Articles 2 and 8 of the Trademark Act

Han Span Span Corplate's Patent Attorney Spanishment

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 418 decided March 31, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The ground of appeal by claimant's representative is examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the trademark of this case is not registered as a trademark because it is merely a simple and ordinary mark referred to in Article 8(1)6 of the Trademark Act, and it is not possible to register as a trademark because it is merely a simple and ordinary mark referred to in Article 8(1)6 of the Trademark Act, and it is merely a simple and ordinary mark referred to in Article 8(1)6 of the Trademark Act, and it is just in light of the record, and it cannot be said that there is any misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the special distinction, or any other misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the special distinction, such as the theory, or any other error. In addition, each of the Supreme Court decisions in this case is not appropriate.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)