Whether the designated goods referred to in the "SNITAR IMO GOD" constitute a technical (technical) trademark if the designated goods are two goods, etc. (affirmative)

The prior meaning of the trademark "SN ITITAL SOGM" in the patent application trademark "SNITRIS SOGGD" is "SOD" (in particular, Drheat and tuberculosis patients), the term "SOGGOD" refers to the trademark "SOGGGGGGGGD" as "if the trademark is transferred as it is, it is a good sanatorium". However, if the two products are related to the designated goods, it is possible to recognize it as "vel goods" or "Medical Care", and since the word "SOGGGGM" is so small that it can be seen as "vel goods", it is a typical and easy technical expression that it is "OGGGD" and it is also a product that can be seen as one of the designated goods under the trademark law, and thus, it can be seen as "the technical expression and the quality of the designated goods under the trademark law" and thus, it can be seen as "the technical expression and effects of the trademark."

Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

Austriacquerel Contacba Contacz. (Patent Attorney Kim Yoon-le et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 96Na73 dated July 30, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Whether a trademark is a trademark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of the designated goods in a common way shall be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark, relation with the designated goods, the degree of ordinary consumers and traders' understanding and recognition of the trademark, the circumstances of the trade society, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1248, May 16, 197). In light of the records, the prior meaning of the "SN ITRIU SOD" among the applied trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark"), "SN ITIGGUM" is (in particular, the disease and tuberculosis patients), the care center or care center, the "SOGOD" means that the trademark of this case is very good for the designated goods of this case, so it can be seen that it can be easily seen as the "product or care center," and it can be seen as a good for the designated goods of this case, and thus, it can be seen as the "product or care center," and it can be seen as a good for the two designated goods of this case.

For the same reason, the court below deemed the original trademark as a technical trademark under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, and maintained the original condition which rejected the registration as a result of the lack of the reasoning. However, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the meaning and content of the trademark, or the technical trademark under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the technical trademark, or incomplete deliberation.

In addition, it is necessary to independently determine whether a trademark is registered under the Korean Trademark Act, and it is not a legal system or language habitor of another foreign country’s registration (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1866, Jun. 24, 1997). The Supreme Court precedents pointed out in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in this case, unlike this case.

In addition, as long as the original trademark cannot be registered because it falls under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, the legitimacy or omission of the decision of the court below as to whether it falls under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act does not affect the result of the decision (the original trial omitted the decision on this point). Thus, the ground of appeal on this point is without merit without further review.

The grounds of appeal are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)