[1] Criteria to determine whether a trademark constitutes “a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of goods in a common way” under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act

[2] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in holding otherwise, since it is reasonable to regard the applied trademark as a technical trademark only with a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of the designated goods in a common way, since it is easily recognized that the trademark "SPINT" is used in the designated goods "motor vehicles" as the designated goods, such as "motor vehicles", and thus, ordinary consumers or traders can easily reach a high speed with high speed," etc.

[1] Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu1140 Decided August 16, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1552), Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu1824 Decided September 20, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1714), Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3042 Decided November 29, 2007

Dalera (Patent Attorney Lee Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2010Heo7051 Decided December 10, 2010

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a trademark constitutes “a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of goods in a common way” under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act shall be objectively determined by taking into account the concept possessed by the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the circumstances of the transaction society, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Hu140, Aug. 16, 2004; 2007Hu1824, Sept. 20, 2007).

2. We examine the above legal principles and records.

The applied trademark of this case (International Registration Number No. 775594) is comprised of two designated goods, “automobile”, etc., and English text “SPRINER.” However, “spr inters” is an English language with the intent of a short distance owner, etc., and its Korean language is used in the external language of this meaning at the end of Korea. In addition, in relation to a motor vehicle, the term “sp-p-p-p-p-p-type motor vehicle” combined with “sp-type motor vehicle” and “car” combined with “car” and “car” are used as a word. Considering the above, the applied trademark of this case is deemed to have been used in the designated goods, and it is reasonable to deem that the trademark of this case can easily be seen as having a high speed and high capacity for ordinary consumers or traders, and thus, it constitutes a common and effective trademark, such as a trademark indicating the quality and effect of the designated goods in a way that can easily be easily used.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the applied trademark does not constitute a technical trademark under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act in relation to the designated goods. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on technical trademark, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)