(a) the registry of the original trademark;

B. Whether the requirements for trademark registration under Article 8 of the Trademark Act are necessary for the registration as a joint trademark of the previously registered trademark

A. Whether a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods in a common way is to be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the circumstances of the trade society, etc. In this context, the EXMAR SPPPPPPPPPPP is objectively clear that it can be accepted by ordinary consumers in the meaning of "PPPPL" if it is used for sports equipment, such as skiing, which is the designated goods, if it is used for the designated goods, it cannot be viewed as being indicated in a common way that the quality or efficacy of the designated goods is larger than that of other goods, and even if it is combined with the time of the above EXMAR SPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP, it is merely an additional eXMR sign, and thus, it cannot be registered as a special trademark even if it is combined with the composition of the entire EXPPPPPPPPPPP.

B. Even if the original trademark was applied for as a combined trademark for the applicant’s registered trademark, the requirements for trademark registration under Article 8 of the Trademark Act are required in the registration of the combined trademark. Thus, even if the basic trademark had already been registered, it cannot be readily concluded that the determination of the requirements for registration under the above Act is unnecessary on the basis of the fact that the basic trademark had already been registered, and it should be judged again separately from the basic trademark.

A. Article 8 of the Trademark Act

1. Determination of the court below as to whether the defendant 1 was aware of the facts alleged in the ground of appeal by the court below

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 647 No. 647, Oct. 31, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods in a common way shall be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the circumstances of the trade society, etc. In the case of the original trademark of this case, EXPER has the purport of "explic model" as "explic model", and SUPE also has the meaning of "special level" as "explic", and the original trademark can not be determined as a whole if it is used for physical equipment, such as skiing 43 kinds of Skiskis, which are the designated goods of the original trademark, in light of its concept and the situation of the trade society, even if it is objectively apparent that the highest level of the designated goods can be brought into the meaning of "the highest level of skiing SPM model" as "the highest level of skiing," and it cannot be determined as a whole if it is objectively clear that it is a combination of characters with the original trademark in a common way that the quality or efficacy of the designated goods is more than other goods.

In addition, even though the original trademark is applied for as a combined trademark against the applicant's already registered trademark, the requirements for trademark registration under Article 8 of the Trademark Act are required in the registration of the combined trademark. Thus, even if the basic trademark has already been registered, it cannot be readily concluded that it is unnecessary to judge the requirements for registration under Article 8 of the Trademark Act as to the combined trademark, and it is necessary to re-determine it separately from the basic trademark, so long as the original trademark is proved to fall under Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, it cannot be registered regardless of its registration.

In the same purport, the original adjudication that maintained the original condition that rejected the registration of the original trademark is somewhat insufficient, is justified in its conclusion, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Articles 8 and 12 of the Trademark Act, or any error in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the decision of the original adjudication, and the decision of the party member pointing out by the theory is not appropriate in this case. Therefore, all of the arguments are groundless.

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 Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)