[1] Criteria for determining a special distinction between trademarks

[2] The case holding that the main trademark consisting solely of the shape of the shape of the water-free pattern in the shape has a distinctive character of the other product

[1] The term "trademark" means that a person who produces, manufactures, processes, or sells a product as a business refers to a special or low-level mark, letter, figure, or combination thereof used to distinguish his/her product from the product of another business operator. The existence of a special or low-level mark, which serves as a standard to distinguish his/her product from the product of another business operator, shall be objectively determined by whether a general trader or a consumer can recognize the origin of the product by the trademark in relation to a trademark and its designated product.

[2] The trademark at the main body of the trademark is a figure which shapes the form of spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spherics, or small spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spherics, and even in its concept, it is not a simple and ordinary mark, but a mark which generally indicates the use, nature, etc. of the designated

[1] Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 74Hu75 delivered on August 19, 197, Supreme Court Decision 85Hu107 delivered on February 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 433), Supreme Court Decision 85Hu107 delivered on February 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 433), Supreme Court Decision 91Hu455 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong192, 687), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu906 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong194, 2868)

Ecworkter system (Law Firm Central Patent Office, Attorneys Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 93Na2467 dated April 28, 1995

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant shall be examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") is a figure trademark, and it shows the same as the shape of the body of water, and that the shape of the grain line to indicate the shape of the body resolution, or that it is difficult to specify the whole size from a trademark perspective as a whole, since it is difficult to see that the entire composition of the original trademark is an external composition and it is difficult to recognize the distinctiveness of the goods of the original trademark in light of social norms because it is difficult to recognize the distinctiveness of the goods of the original trademark in light of its composition, and that the original decision rejecting the registration is justifiable in accordance with Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

However, a trademark refers to a special and low-level mark, letter, figure, or combination thereof used by a person who produces, manufactures, processes, or sells a product as a business of the product to distinguish the product from the product of another business operator. The purpose of the Trademark Act is to contribute to the development of the national industry by maintaining the business reputation of a trademark user by protecting such trademark, and at the same time to protect the interests of consumers. The existence of a special and low-level mark, which can distinguish the product from the product of another business operator, shall be objectively determined by whether ordinary traders or consumers can recognize the source of the product by the trademark in relation to any trademark and the designated product (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Hu107, Feb. 10, 1987; 74Hu75, Aug. 19, 1975).

Therefore, the trademark of this part is a figure which shapes the form of physical integrity in the shape of the remaining body in the appearance of the trademark, or which is a figure which shapes the shape of the shape of the remaining body, and even in its concept, it is not a simple and ordinary mark, but a mark which generally indicates the use, nature, etc. of the designated goods. Thus, the ordinary trader or consumer can sufficiently recognize the source of the designated goods by the original trademark. Thus, even though the original trademark has the distinctiveness of the goods, the court below judged it as a trademark which does not enable consumers under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act to distinguish who indicate the goods related to anyone's business. Thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the distinctiveness of the trademark or the special and presentness of the trademark, or failing to exhaust all deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the trial decision.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)