[1] Purport of Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act

[2] Whether a trademark "POWERWAVE + TECHOPEES" constitutes a technical (technical) mark under Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (affirmative)

[1] Under Articles 23(1)1 and 6(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997), a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, shape, etc. of designated goods in a common way shall be refused to register the trademark. The purport of the provision is not only the case where a mark indicating the contents listed in Article 6(1)3 loses the function of distinguishing the goods from the technical mark indicating the characteristics of the goods, but also the case where a trademark indicating the contents listed in Article 6(1)3 loses the function of distinguishing the goods from the other goods. Even if there is a function of distinguishing domestic goods, it is not reasonable for the public interest to exclusively use the trademark only to a certain specific person on the basis of an indication necessary for the transaction of goods.

[2] The applied trademark is a combination of "TPPWAVE" and "TECHNOGIE" and is a combination of "TPPWER" and "WAVE" with the purport of "PHWE" with power, power, electricity, etc., and "WAVE" with the meaning of "WAVE", and "TECHHHNOOGIS" with the intent of "technology" are multiple types of "TECHNLOGY" with the meaning of "TECHNGY", and specifically, it means radio frequency expansion (radifrequation) in the area of radio communication, so it can be said that the general consumers or general consumers can not apply for the designated goods of the applied trademark with strong distinctiveness in terms of "VGI" as the designated goods of the applied trademark, so it can not be said that the general consumers or general consumers can not have strong distinctiveness as the designated goods of the applied trademark, so it can be said that it can not be said that the designated goods of the designated goods of the applied trademark are strong in terms of "VG".

[1] Articles 6(1)3 and 23(1)1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997) / [2] Article 6(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Hu41 delivered on January 23, 1984 (Gong1984, 371) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Hu940 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3303) Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2132 delivered on May 25, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1287)

Telecommunicationswab teves et al. (Attorneys Park Su-gil, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 99Heo4156 delivered on September 16, 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, under Article 23 (1) 1 and Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 197, the same applies hereinafter), the court below determined that a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, shape, etc. of the designated goods in a common way should be refused trademark registration. The purport of the provision is to indicate the contents listed in Article 6 (1) 3 as a technical mark indicating the characteristics of the goods in order to distinguish one's own goods from other goods. Even if there is a function to distinguish domestic goods, it is unreasonable for anyone to use the trademark exclusively on the part of the designated goods in a way of trade (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Hu41, Jan. 23, 1984). It is difficult for the court below to hold that the trademark "OVG PEVPP" as a strong type of designated goods, such as an "mymmetric."

In light of the records and the purport of Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act, the decision of the court below is just, and contrary to the plaintiff's grounds of appeal, it cannot be deemed that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to technical marks, and it cannot be recognized as the acquisition of distinguishability due to use. The Supreme Court decisions cited in the grounds of appeal

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)