Whether the "ILUINATR" constitutes a technical mark or a quality misleading mark, which is a clock of the designated goods (negative)

The application trademark can be seen as expressing the quality, efficacy, shape, etc. of the designated goods. However, it is not directly related to displaying time or measuring time, and it is difficult for ordinary traders or consumers to regard the applied trademark as indicating the characteristics of visibility that is the designated goods. Thus, it is difficult to see that the applied trademark is viewed as indicating the characteristics of visibility that is the designated goods.

Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1770 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1338), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1729 delivered on May 23, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1874), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu358 delivered on July 8, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2376), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1231 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2719), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2494 delivered on September 12, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3107)

Kao Kao Kao Kao Kao Kao Kao Kao Baa (Patent Attorney above-apon et al., Counsel for

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na2946 dated December 24, 1996

The original adjudication 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 original decision, the court below determined that the original decision rejecting the registration of the original trademark pursuant to Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act was justifiable, on the ground that the trademark of this case is a trademark consisting solely of a mark directly indicating the nature (quality, efficacy, shape) of the designated goods, on the ground that the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "ILUINATR") is referred to as "a brightnessing light," "a brightnessing light," "a brightnessing light," and "a brightnessing light related to the goods, such as visibility, such as the designated goods."

However, whether a trademark is approved solely with a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, shape, etc. of goods under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act in a common way shall be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark, the common quality, efficacy, shape, and circumstances of the transaction society, etc. of the goods in question. Even if the trademark appears to indicate or emphasize the quality, efficacy, shape, etc. of the designated goods, it shall not be deemed that general traders or consumers cannot be recognized as expressing the simple quality, efficacy, shape, etc. of the designated goods when considering the overall composition of the trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Hu1770, Feb. 10, 1995; 96Hu1729, May 23, 1997).

According to the records, there can be luminous lights in sights, such as embars, gykes, and electronic stokes, which are the designated goods of the main trademark, so it can be recognized that the main trademark is an expression of the quality, efficacy, shape, etc. of the designated goods. However, the visibility, which is the designated goods, is used to indicate time or measure time and is not directly related to light or lighting. Therefore, it is difficult for ordinary traders or consumers to regard the main trademark as indicating the characteristics of visibility, which is the designated goods.

If so, the original decision is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, which is a trademark indicating the nature of the designated goods. The ground of appeal pointing this out is correct.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench to reverse the original adjudication, and remand the case to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial and determination.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)