[1] Purport of Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act

[2] Where an applicant trademark is not a conspicuous geographical name under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act, the standard for determining whether the trademark is disqualified for trademark registration

[3] Whether the "PZA TOGO" in the applied trademark refers to the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of Korea, Africa, and constitutes a conspicuous geographical name (negative)

[1] The purport of Article 6(1)4 of the Trademark Act stipulating a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name as a passive requirement for trademark registration is to allow all persons to use the trademark and to not grant a specific person the exclusive right to use the trademark on the ground that such trademark cannot be recognized as a special distinction due to its apparentness and well-knownness.

[2] The term " conspicuous geographical name" under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act refers to a mark in itself that can convey immediate geographical sense to ordinary consumers in relation to a specific product. Thus, if the applied trademark is not itself a conspicuous geographical name, it shall be determined whether the trademark can be registered as a trademark by determining whether it has distinctiveness in light of the name, appearance, and concept of the applied trademark, comprehensively taking into account the trademark and the conspicuous geographical name, if the applied trademark is not a conspicuous geographical name.

[3] Among the "PZA TO" in the applied trademark "PZG GO", the "TO" is distinguishable from external appearance, and in light of the general consumers' understanding level of foreign language in our country, the term is highly likely to be referred to as "satis", and in terms of the concept, "TO" is understood as "GO" as "C" due to the total death in English, so it is difficult to view that the trademark applied to general consumers in relation to the designated goods is capable of transmitting the geographical sense of "top" in the West Africa, that is, the trademark applied to general consumers in relation to the designated goods. Accordingly, the above applied trademark cannot be viewed as a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name.

[1] Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act / [3] Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Hu90 delivered on May 15, 1984 (Gong1984, 1127), Supreme Court Decision 85Hu103 delivered on July 22, 1986 (Gong1986, 1110) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 80Hu50 Delivered on July 8, 1980 (Gong1980, 1305) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Hu176 delivered on September 22, 1987 (Gong1987, 1643) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 86Hu157 delivered on February 23, 198 (Gong198, 596) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu31994 delivered on October 7, 194 (Gong1994) / [190)]

Applicant (Patent Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na1406 decided September 20, 1996

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below affirmed the original condition that rejected the registration under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act because the trademark applied in this case falls under a conspicuous geographical name and constitutes a conspicuous geographical name, and thus, the trademark applied in this case constitutes the trademark applied in this case as designated goods, and thus, ordinary consumers recognize the trademark applied in this case as an "TGO", which is the country of the father of African directly.

However, the purport of Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act stipulating a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name as a passive requirement for trademark registration is to allow any person to freely use the trademark and not grant any specific person the exclusive right to use the trademark because it is not recognized as a special distinction due to its apparentness and well-knownness (see Supreme Court Decision 85Hu103, Jul. 22, 1986). Here, a conspicuous geographical name refers to a trademark that itself means a trademark that can deliver immediate geographical sense to ordinary consumers in relation to a specific product, so if the applied trademark is not a conspicuous geographical name itself, whether it is possible to register the trademark after considering its distinctiveness in terms of its name with the applied trademark, name with a conspicuous geographical name, external appearance, and concept (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu157, Feb. 23, 198).

In light of the records, the "TO GO" among the applied trademarks in this case is separated from appearance, and in light of the foreign language understanding level of the general consumers in our country, in terms of the name, it is highly likely to be called as "satison", and in terms of the concept, "TO" is understood as "GO" due to the total death in English, so in relation to the designated goods, it is difficult to regard the trademark in this case as a mark capable of transmitting to general consumers the geographical sense of "top" in Western Africa, that is, it is difficult to say that the trademark in this case can not be viewed as a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name, and the trademark in this case has distinctiveness as a trademark.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the trademark of this case consists solely of a conspicuous geographical name. Such decision of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to a conspicuous geographical name, and it is obvious that this affected the result of the decision, and therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)