[1] In a case where the figure of a technical text trademark has reached the degree of a special attention of ordinary people, whether it constitutes a mark "a mark indicating in a normal way" under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act (negative)

[2] The case holding that the trademark applied for trademark "ORGINAL + Jazz + CLASIC" as part of the composition of "Jazzz + the CLASIC is a mark indicating the quality and efficacy of the designated goods as a whole in a common way, since the degree of designization of the "Jazz" part, which is written in a scrub, is likely to have a sense of technical or explanatory meaning of characters, leading to the special attention of ordinary people, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the trademark applied for trademark as a whole is a mark

[1] In a case where a technical trademark has a glusation of diagrams, and the general public has an ordinary caution, if the glusation of the figure as a whole leads to the degree of the ordinary people’s special attention, if the glusation of the technical or descriptive meaning of the text is prevented, it shall be deemed as having a special distinctive character, and in such a case, it shall not be deemed as a mark “a mark indicating in a general way” as stipulated in Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act.

[2] The case holding that the trademark applied for trademark "ORGINAL + Jazz + CLASIC is a mark indicating the quality and efficacy of the designated goods as a whole in a common way, since the degree of 'Jzzzz' described as a part of the composition of the "ORGINAL + CLASIC" could not be easily viewed as a mark since the degree of 'Jazzzzzz' described as a part of the composition of the "JLSIC" could not be able to express the technical or explanatory meaning of letters, and thus, it

[1] Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu986 delivered on February 28, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 947) Supreme Court Decision 98Hu1679 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 851)

UNTASYINC. (Law Firm Central Law Firm, Attorneys Lee Do-ri et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 200Heo1900 delivered on August 11, 2000

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below held that the applied trademark of this case is a combination trademark consisting of two straight lines on the basis of inspection and four lines inside the horizontal line, and the two straight lines inside the vertical square line, namely, the upper part marked "ORIGINL" as a dic body, the intermediate part marked "JASICS" as a dic body, the middle part marked "CLASICS" as a dic body, and the middle part of the above text is devised to some extent. However, it is reasonable to view that ordinary consumers can not regard the above part of the applied trademark as the designated goods as the mark "JAZS" as the original trademark, and that it can not be seen that the above part of the designated goods as the trademark of this case cannot be seen as having been displayed in a unique way to recognize separate distinctiveness other than the meaning of ordinary characters, and that the part of the applied trademark of this case including the "MUGS" as the original or non-distinctive part of the designated goods in a dic body, and that it cannot be viewed as the original part of the original trademark in a way to use.

However, in a case where a technical character trademark has a glusation and a common sense of attention, if the general public has a glusation, as a whole, the glusation of the glusation of the glusation as a whole, and the glusation of the technical or explanatory meaning of the glusation as much as it is impossible to express the special attention of the general public, it shall be deemed that the glusation of the glusation of the glusation has a special distinctive character. In such a case, it shall not be deemed as a mark "a mark indicated by the general method" as stipulated in Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Hu986, Feb. 28, 199;

In light of the records, the remaining part of the trademark of this case, excluding the part of the trademark of this case, constitutes a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods in a common way, or a simple and mixed mark indicating the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods in a common way, as recognized by the court below, but the first part is in the shape where only the upper part of the "J" is left behind in the alphazzz as a pen, and the last part is in the shape where the lower part of the "z" is omitted in the z's z's z's z's sz's sz's sz's sz's sz's sz's sz's sz's sz's sz's sz's sz's sz', and the last part is modified to the number "three", so it is difficult for ordinary consumers to describe the meaning of this part in the English body.

Therefore, although the trademark applied in this case cannot be concluded to be "a mark indicating the quality and efficacy of the designated goods in a common way" as a whole, the court below held that the trademark applied in this case constitutes "a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods in a common way" and thus its registration should be refused only for the reasons stated in its decision. It is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, and the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)