1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) Number of the applied trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant applied trademark”): Number of the applied trademark of this case / Date of application: Medical use and extra-use equipment of Category 10 as well as Category 10

B. On January 21, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the ground for rejection that “the trademark of this case is a trademark indicating the nature of the designated goods in a common way, and falls under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) with no distinctive character in relation to the designated goods. The Plaintiff submitted a written opinion, etc. on March 11, 2016. However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rejected the instant application trademark on the ground that the said ground for rejection was not resolved on May 16, 2016. 2) and the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 16, 2016, on the following grounds:

The trademark of this case is understood to mean “medical equipment, etc. to which medical or medical technology applies,” which is designated goods, and thus, constitutes Article 6(1)3 of the former Trademark Act, as a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the nature (quality and purpose) of designated goods.

This case’s applied trademark is simply combined with “APPED” and “MPEAL” and thus, it is impossible to distinguish consumers as to whose business it has no distinguishability as a whole, and thus, it constitutes Article 6(1)7 of the former Trademark Act.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.