[1] Where the purport of Article 6(1)4 of the Trademark Act and a conspicuous geographical name, etc. are combined with technical marks, etc., whether the application of the above provision is excluded (negative in principle) and the meaning of "any conspicuous geographical name" under the above provision (negative in principle)

[2] Where foreign companies Gap filed an application for trademark " "," but the Korean Intellectual Property Office rejected the application for trademark registration on the ground that the applied trademark falls under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act, the case holding that the applied trademark falls under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act on the ground that the applied trademark is recognized as "GEORA," a conspicuous geographical name

[1] Article 6(1)4 of the Trademark Act provides that a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name, the abbreviation thereof, or a map may not be registered. Meanwhile, the purport of the provision is to refuse to grant exclusive license to only a specific individual as it is impossible to recognize the distinctiveness of a trademark due to its apparentness and well-knownness. In light of the foregoing, Article 6(1)4 of the Trademark Act is not applicable only to a mark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name, the abbreviation thereof, or the map, and even in a case where a trademark is combined with a non-distinctiveness, etc. with a conspicuous geographical name, etc., even if such combination does not result in a new concept beyond the original conspicuous geographical name or the technical meaning or form a new distinctive character, the mere fact that the trademark consisting of a trademark consisting of a geographical name, a conspicuous geographical name, a geographical name, and a specific local product and a specific local product are merely a geographical name, and thus, it is not necessary to recognize that the trademark constitutes a conspicuous geographical special relationship with the designated product.

[2] Where the Korean Intellectual Property Office applied for trademark " "," but the trademark applied for trademark registration was rejected on the ground that it constitutes Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act, the case holding that since the phrase "GEORGA" in the above part of the trademark constitutes a conspicuous geographical name since it is widely known to general consumers as the English name in the northwest of Asia or the name in the South East East Eastern State in the United States, it constitutes a conspicuous geographical name, and the shape and shape of the coffee is merely limited to those of the coffee lurbb, and although the tea lurbbs are somewhat of design, it can be directly reduced into the shape of the tea lurbs and the tea lurbs of the designated goods of the applied trademark on the ground that ordinary consumers maintain the basic form of the tea lurbs and the tea lurbs of the applied trademark on the ground that there is no distinctive character in relation to the tea lurbs.

[1] Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1682 delivered on August 22, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2887) Supreme Court Decision 98Hu1273 delivered on June 13, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1689) Supreme Court Decision 200Hu181 Delivered on April 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1288)

Furthermore, Kokccacom (Law Firm Yang Hun-Hun, Attorneys Choi Gyeong-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2010Heo9088 Decided April 13, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 6(1)4 of the Trademark Act provides that a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name, the abbreviation thereof, or a map may not be registered. The purport of the provision is to refrain from granting exclusive license to only a specific individual as it is impossible to recognize the distinctiveness of a trademark due to its apparentness and well-knownness (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1682, Aug. 22, 1997). In light of the foregoing, Article 6(1)4 of the Trademark Act does not apply only to a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name, the abbreviation thereof, or the map. Even if a trademark consisting of a technical mark with no obvious geographical name, etc., such trademark is not a combination of a new geographical name or the technical meaning, regardless of its original conspicuous name or a new concept, or if a trademark consisting of a new distinctive character, it cannot be said that the trademark constitutes a specific geographical speciality that requires the application of the aforementioned provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu168, Apr. 16, 20002).

2. We examine the above legal principles and records. The trademark " of this case (application number No. 40-2008-23211)" is a mark which is composed of two parts of "GEMGGGGGGIA" in the rectangular form on the basis of sound inspection. The trademark of this case (application number No. 40-2008-23211) is a trademark which is composed of two parts of "GEGGIA" in yellow color. However, since the trademark of this case is widely known to general consumers as the English name of the region located in the Northernwest of Asia or the name of the other part of the other part of the United States, the trademark of this case constitutes a conspicuous geographical name (refer to Supreme Court Decision 85Hu106 Decided February 25, 1986) since the trademark of this case is composed of two different parts of the original tea and its new distinctive character as a whole with the trademark of this case, the trademark of this case can not be seen as a new tea and its new shape as it is.

On the other hand, whether a trademark is eligible for registration shall be determined individually in relation to the designated goods, and the registration examples of other trademarks cannot be the basis for registering a specific trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu353, May 12, 2006, etc.). Furthermore, whether a trademark applying for registration is registered independently in relation to the designated goods under the Korean Trademark Act, or whether a legal system or language habits is not a challenge to other foreign registrations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu1768, May 16, 2003). Therefore, the trademark of this case cannot be deemed to have a distinctive character in relation to a tea, etc. merely on the ground that a trademark combining a tea pattern with a tea pattern is registered in Korea or the trademark of this case was registered in Japan on the designated goods such as coffee, etc.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. Furthermore, since the grounds for rejection that an application for trademark registration cannot be registered pursuant to Article 6 (1) 3, 4, and 7 of the Trademark Act are selective relations, the judgment of the court below to the effect that there is a ground for rejection under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act on the applied trademark of this case, it is not necessary to determine the remaining grounds for appeal as to the remaining grounds for rejection.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)