Book of Registration Price of "DIE COKE" in the Main Trademark (negative)

The main trademark marked with the crossing "DIECOK" in English is "DIE for treatment and weight control" in double "DIE". Although the main trademark is combined with "COK", a well-known trademark of the applicant, although the main trademark is "COE", the main trademark is recognized as "food taking nutrition into consideration" in general consumers or consumers when comprehensively observing the original trademark, and therefore, the above "DIET" is a case where it is impossible to obtain trademark registration under Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act as it indicates the nature or use of the designated goods.

Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

further, the name of the patent attorney of Cambodia, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office's appeal No. 753 of the 1983 Notice No. 28, Dec. 28, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 8 (1) of the Trademark Act lists cases where a trademark cannot be registered as a trademark, and stipulates that the trademark is only a mark indicating in a common way the origin, quality, raw material, efficacy, use, quantity, shape, production method, processing method, method of use, method of use or time of the goods in question under subparagraph 3 of the same Article. The trademark which is impossible to be registered as a trademark is intended to prevent a specific person from exclusive use of the trademark, which is a mark indicating in a common way the origin, quality, raw material, efficacy, use, quantity, shape, price, manufacturing method, processing method, method of use or time of the goods with no special distinction.

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below held that the original trademark is an English letter trademark marked with the crossing "DIE COME" and double "DIE" means "medical treatment, weight control," and although the original trademark is combined with "COKE", which is the well-known trademark of the applicant, the original trademark is one of the combinations with "COKE" which is the well-known trademark of the applicant, the court below held that it is a direct indication of the nature of the general designated goods, such as "medical treatment, weight control," "medical treatment, and water supply, taking nutrition into consideration", and that the trademark is perceived as a health aesthetic beverage.

The so-called "DIE" is a mere so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called "food beverage", and the judgment of the court below is acknowledged without evidence that the original trademark is a so-called so-called so-called "so-called so-called" food beverage. However, although the original trademark is combined with the words "DIE", it cannot be said that the original trademark refers to so-called a so-called "so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called "so-called so-called" food beverage in consumers and trading society without recognizing that it is not a healthy so-called so-called so-called a so-called so-called "health food beverage" in the well-known trademark "COE" in the consumers and trading society, and it cannot be viewed that even according to the so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called a so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called "so-called so-called, without any proper reason to criticize the original trademark in this case.

Ultimately, the "DIE" of the original trademark "DIE" indicates the nature of the designated goods or their use, and thus, it constitutes a case where a trademark cannot be registered under Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, and thus, the original adjudication that maintained the ruling of rejection of this case cannot be deemed to be justifiable and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles of the theory of lawsuit, and the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)