The case holding that there is a ground for rejecting registration under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, which consists solely of a mark indicating the quality or efficacy of the designated goods as a whole in a common way;

The case holding that, among the parts of the written trademark “” in the application trademark “”, the trademark “FEL” is a designated product that makes it possible for ordinary consumers to directly understand the meaning of the written word “shot,” and the phrase “GOD” is a word with the meaning of “Good,” and thus, if used for the designated goods, it is directly sense that the designated goods are “Good,” or “to make good,” and that the part of the applied trademark can also be seen as being placed in a manner that is commonly seen, and therefore, it cannot be seen that the ordinary consumers can directly understand the special meaning of the written figure as it is difficult to view that the written figure portion has produced a special concept, or reached the degree that it offsets and absorbs the concept of the written part, and it is a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality or efficacy of the designated goods in a common way as a whole, and that there exists a ground for refusal of registration falling under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act.

Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

November 4, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 18, 2005 on the case No. 2005 Won676 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the trial decision;

A. The Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on the ground that the instant trademark filed by the Plaintiff falls under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act as a technical mark as indicated below, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a decision of refusal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s decision of refusal falls under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a decision of rejection on the ground that the Plaintiff’s decision of refusal falls under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s decision of refusal is directly understood as “FEL GOD,” which is a part of the trademark applied in the instant case’s trademark, and that the trademark applied in the instant case’s decision of refusal, has a distinctive character to the degree that the trademark’s figure is sworn and good, and thus, the trademark applied in the instant case’s decision of refusal is reasonable.

B. The applied trademark of this case

(1) Date: Number of the application on December 29, 2003: 2003-57610

(3) Composition:

(d) Designated goods: A temporary agent for motor vehicles, an air conditioners for motor vehicles, an automobile smell removal agents, an automobile malodor removal agents (the classification of goods in attached Table 1 of Article 6(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act), a direction-setting agent for motor vehicles, an automobile smoke strawing agent for motor vehicles, an automobile washing agent, an automobile glass agent, a detailed agent for motor vehicles, a detailed agent for motor vehicles (the classification of goods in Class 3);

【Evidence: No dispute between the Parties】

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the trial decision

A. The plaintiff's assertion

이 사건 출원상표의 문자 부분인 ‘FEEL GOOD’은 ‘느낌이 좋은, 좋은 느낌’ 등의 심적 느낌을 표시하여 그 지정상품의 품질이나 효능을 나타내는 것으로 볼 수 없고, 설령 그 문자 부분이 지정상품의 품질이나 효능을 표시한다고 보더라도 그 도형 부분이 믿음과 신용을 보장하는 인장을 상징하는 와 같이 굵은 테두리를 한 정사각형 도형과 영문자의 첫 글자와 끝 글자를 연결하여 실내의 앞에서 끝까지 가득히 향기가 그윽함을 나타내는 와 같이 이루어진 도형이 독특하게 결합되어 이 사건 출원상표는 전체적으로 식별력이 있다.

(b) Markets:

The applied trademark of this case is a trademark which connects “FEL” and “GOD” under the above, and is a trademark which connects “FEL” and “FEL” with shapes formed at the bottom and end of the first word of the English applicant. Of the text of the applied trademark of this case, the word “FEL” and “GOD” respectively have the meaning of “sembre” and “Good”, and if the word is used for designated goods, it is directly sense that the designated goods are “sembling good sense” or “semble good sense” or “S”. The part of the applied trademark of this case can not be seen as being placed in a way that ordinary consumers have expressed the above meaning as asserted by the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to view that the trademark of this case constitutes the designated goods as a whole, and thus, the trademark of this case cannot be seen as offsetting with the concept or efficacy of the trademark of this case.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the trademark applied in this case is deemed to have grounds for refusal of registration falling under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act. Thus, the trial decision of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-ho (Presiding Judge)