[1] Whether a trademark is registered as a mark that is actually used in the goods, or that is recognized by ordinary consumers or traders as the raw materials of the goods (negative)

[2] Whether the applied trademark "KERATIN" is a mark indicating raw materials, such as "Skinkin , shampoo and shampoo," which is the designated goods (affirmative)

[1] Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act provides that a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the raw materials of goods in a common way shall not be registered. Thus, a trademark refers to the raw materials actually used for the designated goods of a trademark, or a trademark that a general consumer or a trader recognizes as the raw materials of the designated goods cannot be registered.

[2] In light of the fact that the applied trademark "KERATIN" is included in cosmetics (HAC) which have the function of spreading and controlling skins in the international cosmetic raw materials, and the Korea Food and Drug Administration recognizes it as materials usable as cosmetics. In light of the fact that shampoo products consisting of shampoos and shamper products are advertised, it can be seen that the designated goods of the applied trademark "KERATIN" are actually used as raw materials, such as shamper, shampoo and shamper, and hamper, which are the designated goods of the applied trademark. In addition, it can be seen that the "KERATIN" is in fact used as raw materials of the applied trademark, in advance, in advance, in advance, in the Korean language, and in advance, it is difficult to see that the above "KINTINAIN" is in terms of satching, satching, satching, satching, and so on.

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Hu75 delivered on July 26, 1983 (Gong1983, 1336), Supreme Court Decision 85Hu64 delivered on February 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 431), Supreme Court Decision 89Hu667 delivered on December 8, 1989 (Gong190, 263)

Pacific Co., Ltd. (Law Firm KCEL, Attorneys Kim Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Park Young-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Patent Court Decision 2001Heo5039 delivered on December 28, 2001

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act provides that a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the raw materials of goods in a common way shall not be registered. Thus, a trademark refers to the raw materials actually used for the designated goods of a trademark, or a trademark that a general consumer or a trader recognizes as the raw materials of the designated goods cannot be registered (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Hu64, Feb. 10, 1987; 89Hu667, Dec. 8, 1989).

According to the records, "KERATIN", which is the applied trademark of this case, is included in cosmetics (HAV), which have the function of spreading and controlling skins in the International Cosmetics Raw Materials Center, and the Korea Food and Drug Administration recognizes it as materials usable as cosmetics, and in light of the fact that shamper, which contains shamper and shamper products as ingredients, are advertised, it is possible to see that the "KERATIN" is actually used as raw materials, such as shamper, shamper, shamper, and hacker, which are the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case, as well as the above facts in light of the fact that shamperaTIN, which are the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case, are used as such raw materials, and that the above "KERATIN" is insufficient to recognize that the above product of this case is "HAEAIN" in advance, Korean Language, and so it is difficult to obtain the above "HAE" as part of the product's name "IER".

Nevertheless, the court below held that the trademark of this case is eligible for trademark registration in the applied trademark of this case, on the grounds that it is difficult to regard the designated goods of this case as the professional terms in the biochemical field and the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case as frequently used in the domestic trade field. Thus, the ordinary traders or consumers in the business sector to which the designated goods of this case belong shall report the trademark of this case and shall not be easily recognized as indicating the raw materials of the designated goods. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act and failing to properly examine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the grounds of appeal pointing this out

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

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)