[1] Whether "Y" and "Y" constitute "a trademark consisting solely of a simple and ordinary mark" under Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act (affirmative)

[2] Criteria for determining whether a trademark constitutes "a trademark consisting solely of a mark" and "a trademark consisting solely of a common mark" under Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act

[1] The applied trademark "Y" is a trademark consisting of combinations between "K," a English alpha, and "Y," and the applied trademark "K," which is composed of combinations between "K," a English alpha, and "K," and "h, which are recognized as being written in Korean language as being written in the text of the above alpha," and "h," and its composition is difficult to be deemed as particularly leading people's attention, and it does not form a new meaning or concept due to connection with the attached alpha, and it is general that the attached part is not called separately. Accordingly, the applied trademark is a trademark consisting of simple and ordinary marks that do not have a distinctive character more than that of two characters in English alphaba, and thus, it is a trademark consisting solely of a simple and ordinary mark that does not have a distinctive character.

[2] Whether a trademark is a simple and ordinary trademark under Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act shall be determined only by the composition of the trademark regardless of the designated goods.

[1] Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Hu39 delivered on September 10, 1985 (Gong1985, 1335), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu449 delivered on June 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2110), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1187 delivered on February 25, 197 (Gong197Sang, 941)

Josonnson (Patent Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 99Heo1638 delivered on April 29, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark of this case") (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark of this case") (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark of this case") is a trademark composed by linking "K" and "Y" with "K", and the trademark of this case (2) (hereinafter referred to as the "application No. 28, 1997) (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark of this case") and the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark of this case") (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark of this case") is not a simple trademark of this case, since it is difficult to see that the trademark of this case is a trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark of this case") which is recognized as being written in the Korean language of the above Alphaba, and it is not a trademark of this case, and it is not a trademark of this case which is composed of 'a simple trademark of this case, which is not a trademark of this case nor a new trademark of this case.

In light of records and relevant laws, the above recognition and determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act as discussed in the judgment below.

The issue is that the original trademark is not a simple and ordinary mark when viewed as the designated goods. However, whether it is a trademark consisting solely of a simple and ordinary mark as prescribed by Article 6(1)6 of the Trademark Act shall be determined by the composition of the trademark regardless of the designated goods. Thus, there is no reason to discuss it.

In addition, the Supreme Court's precedents pointing out arguments are inappropriate to rely on this case, different from this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)