Whether a trademark " " constitutes a simple and trace mark" (affirmative)

In the application trademark "," the trademark " shall consist of 10 goods, such as crushers, chillers, boilers, etc., of the category of goods classified into the category of goods. The above trademark simply combines one third person with the above simple and common figures within the shape of a original form, and it cannot be deemed that the trademark has a distinctive character of one's goods in the transaction since it is merely a simple and ordinary mark as provided by Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act, and it constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a simple and ordinary mark as provided by Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act. Thus, the trademark cannot be registered.

Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Hu93 Decided January 29, 1985 (Gong1985, 366), Supreme Court Decision 84Hu39 Decided September 10, 1985 (Gong1985, 1335), Supreme Court Decision 92Hu2267 Decided July 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2425), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu49 Decided June 28, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 210)

Sam-si Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Jeon Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 95Na1067 dated June 14, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the trademark " is a trademark consisting of only a simple and ordinary mark as provided in Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act and its registration is not possible on the ground that it constitutes a trademark that constitutes only a simple and ordinary mark as provided in Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act, and it constitutes a trademark that constitutes a simple and ordinary mark as provided in Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act.

In light of the records, the above determination of the court below is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 6 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act or incomplete deliberation as discussed. Even if trademark or service mark identical or similar to the original trademark is already registered and its application for registration of renewal of the registration of the original trademark is substituted by the same application for registration of renewal of the registration of the original trademark, such registration is not bound in the determination of whether the original trademark is eligible for registration, and even if the original trademark was registered before, the distinctiveness of the original trademark can not be recognized solely on the ground that the original trademark was registered. Meanwhile, the precedents of the party members cited in the arguments are different from those of the original trademark, and it is not appropriate to invoke the issue. There is no reason to discuss.

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)