Whether a registered service mark composed of “Korea’s bookbook + REREA REEARCHCO.” falls under Article 8(1)4 of the former Trademark Act (affirmative)

Article 8 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) does not apply only to a mark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name, its abbreviation or map, and even where the word constituting a mark is combined with a non-distinctive mark or a business type mark without a conspicuous geographical name, etc., the combination does not create a new concept or new concept regardless of the original conspicuous geographical name, the mark or the business type or the technical meaning, or the combination of a common name, etc., so it cannot be deemed that a new distinctive character can not be granted solely on the ground that the word constituting a trademark is a combination of a geographical name, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above provision is applied differently from the above registered service mark, so the term "Korean corporation's registered service mark is not a new type of service mark that is an English mark or a new service mark that cannot be seen as a combination of the registered service mark."

Articles 8(1)4 (see current Article 6(1)4), 9(1)11 (see current Article 7(1)11), and 46 subparag. 1 (see current Article 7(1)1) of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 190);

Supreme Court Decision 92Hu452 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 114), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1056 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 538), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1296 delivered on February 13, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 95Hu1890 delivered on June 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2191), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu600 delivered on February 10, 199 (Gong198Sang, 769), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu1518 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong2060)

[Defendant-Appellee] Korea Libaeng Co., Ltd.

Korea Chamber (Patent Attorney Kim Jae-sub, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 99Heo925 delivered on January 13, 2000

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below rejected Defendant Company’s advertisement (including telephone number change guidance) on domestic daily newspapers and magazines, etc. from September 19, 198 to August 13, 1992, the registration date of the instant registered service mark from September 19, 198 to the date of registration of the instant registered service mark, and rejected Defendant Company’s assertion that Defendant Company used the instant registered service mark as its registered service mark’s basic service mark “1,50,000,000,000 won since it was widely known to Defendant Company’s use of the instant registered service mark as its basic service mark “1,000,000,0000 won since it was established 2 times, 7 times, and 33 times, respectively.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the registered service mark of this case cannot be seen as a registered service mark of this case on the ground that the registered service mark of this case is not a registered service mark of this case since the registered service mark of this case is an official mark of this case, and the registered service mark of this case can not be seen as a registered service mark of this case, since the trademark of this case is combined with the English language "RESAR" of this case with the purport of "RESACH" of this case with the meaning of "No., research, scientific research, academic research, research, research, etc." and the trademark of this case, which is the English language of this case with the meaning of "No. 1 of the registered service mark of this case", which is the trademark of this case, and the trademark of this case, which is the trademark of this case, is recognized as a service mark of the trade name of the company, and the remaining part except the geographical name can not be added or added to the geographical name of this case, since it cannot be seen as a registered service mark of this case.

However, Article 8 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act does not apply only to a mark consisting of a conspicuous geographical name, its abbreviation or map, and even if the word constituting a trademark is in combination with a non-distinctive mark or a technical mark, it cannot be deemed that a new concept is granted solely because the word constituting a trademark is in combination with a conspicuous geographical name, a used mark or a type of business or a technical meaning, or a new concept is combined with a used mark, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above provision of the former Trademark Act is not applicable to the case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Hu452, Nov. 10, 1992; 93Hu1056, Dec. 21, 1993; 198Hu1696, Feb. 13, 1996).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 8 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act which affected the judgment, and the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. 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.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)