A. Criteria for determining whether a trademark is made solely on the mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of goods under Article 8(1)3 of the Trademark Act in a common way

B. Whether the registered trademark "GOLDE LITE" falls under Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act and thus cannot be registered

A. Whether a trademark is approved solely with a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of goods under Article 8(1)3 of the Trademark Act in a common way shall be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark, common quality, efficacy, and circumstances of the trade society, etc. of the goods in question, and even if the trademark appears to indicate or emphasize the quality, efficacy, and use of the designated goods, it does not constitute a general trader or consumer’s mere quality, efficacy, use, etc. of the designated goods when considering the overall composition of the goods.

B. The trademark, in English, written under the name of "GOLDN LITE" written in the Korean language, bearing "abste" as "ab in Korean, may be recognized as expressing and expressing the quality, efficacy, etc. of some of the designated goods. However, in light of the entire designated goods of the above registered trademark, such as other designated goods, it cannot be said that the simple quality, efficacy, use, etc. common to the designated goods are indicated in a common way.

Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Hu31 Decided January 18, 1983, 85Hu53 Decided February 11, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Hu69 Decided September 23, 1986

Patent Attorney Alley-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Patent Attorney Han-chul, et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office No. 259 decided Dec. 26, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 8(1)3 of the Trademark Act provides that "a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the origin, quality, raw material, efficacy, price, production method, processing method, method or time of goods in common shall be excluded from the trademark eligible for registration". The purport of Article 8(1)3 does not prohibit registration of the trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, purpose of use, etc. of the goods, but only where the trademark expresses the quality, efficacy, efficacy, purpose of use, etc. of the goods in common use, the trademark is prohibited from registration. This is because the request of the public interest that the trademark cannot be used exclusively for a specific person in relation to the goods of another person, lack of special distinction by which it can be identified, and it does not constitute 18.6 billion won or more after the sale of the goods, and it does not constitute 9.6 billion won or more after the sale of the goods, and it does not constitute 9.6 billion won or more after the sale of the goods.

2. In light of the records, the court below's decision that the registered trademark of this case is an English language trademark with "GLDDN LITE" written in Korean, "GLDDN" attached under the crossing period, and can be recognized as "GLDDN LGHT" in English and its bottom from "gLDDN" written in Korean. In today's English distribution level, "GGLDN" means "GLGHT" means that the trademark of this case contains light, gold, light or light, light light, yellow light, light traffic signal, good traffic signal, good traffic signal, etc., the designated goods of this case can not be seen as "gLDHT" and "GGHT" has an independent opinion, such as light, light or light, light or light, light or light, transport signal of yellow light, air or light signals, or other related designated goods of this case, and it can be seen that it is difficult for general consumers or users to recognize that the above designated goods of this case can easily be seen as the designated goods of this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)