The case holding that there are grounds for refusal of registration falling under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, which consists solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods and the designated service business in a common way;

The case holding that the applied trademark service mark is merely a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods and the designated service business in a common way and there is a ground for refusal of registration falling under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, since it is required to be judged individually and independently, the registered trademark service mark should not be seen as a mark indicating the nature of the trademark, on the ground that the applied trademark service mark is not a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods and the designated service business in a common way, even if the trademark is registered as the same as the applied trademark service mark.

Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

Eibienz & KbBS, Incoporad (Patent Attorney Im-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

may 27, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 28, 2005 on the case No. 2004 Won2947 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the instant trial decision

A. The Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on the ground that the pending trademark/service mark under Paragraph (b) below, filed by the Plaintiff, falls under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act because the trademark/service mark of the designated goods, etc. is a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods, etc., and the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board recognized that the pending trademark/service mark of the case was "a collection of the goods that the trademark/service mark of the case is "a collection of goods that the trademark/service mark of the case is "a collection of goods that the registered trademark/service mark of the case or the place where such goods are handled" as to

B. Application trademark/service mark of this case

(1) Date of application: the number of application on November 18, 2002: 202-3907

(3) Composition:

(d) Designated goods and designated service business: Industrial raw materials used for the conservation, freezing or processing of food, industrial oxygen, industrial ices used for the conservation, freezing or processing of food, industrial freezing or processing of food, industrial carbon dioxide, food conservation, salt storage, freezing or processing of food under the attached Table 1 of Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trademark Act (category 1 of the Trademark Act), food cooling or cooling equipment, food freezing or processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-related business, the optimal technical treatment-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-related business, the optimal treatment-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-related business, the supply of food, consultation-processing-processing-processing-processing-related business for food, the supply of food, the related food freezing-processing-processing-processing-processing-processing-related business, the 2-processing-processing- treatment-processing-processing-related business.

【Evidence: No dispute between the Parties】

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From among the pending trademark service marks of this case, it is difficult for ordinary consumers to leave the concept of ‘futile', ‘goods' or ‘a collective condition of gathering and gathering' in ‘LINE', and it is difficult to view the trademark service marks of this case as being used in a commercial sense so that they can not be seen as 'a collection of goods that the trademark marks of this case are new or new, or a place where such goods are handled.' The pending trademark service marks of this case do not fall under the trademark service marks of this case, because the marks identical to the pending trademark service marks of this case are registered differently from the designated goods.

(b) Markets:

The pending trademark/service mark of this case is a trademark/service mark consisting of “FREH” and “LINE” without distance. In full view of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1 through 77, Eul evidence 5-1, and Eul evidence 3-1 and 3-3, the above English person's meaning of ‘FREH' is a conspicuous word from middle school course, and ‘LINE' is widely known to each general person, such as ‘LINE', and ‘LINE' is a trademark/service mark that is often used in the back of the combined trademark, and it is commonly recognized that the above trademark/service mark is identical to the above-mentioned trademark/service mark/service mark', and it is difficult to recognize that the above trademark/service mark/service mark is identical to the above-mentioned trademark/service mark/service mark/service mark/service mark' as a whole, since the trademark/service/service mark/service/service/service/service/service/service/service/service-related.

Therefore, the registered trademark service mark of this case is deemed to have a ground for rejection of registration falling under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, and the decision of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-ho (Presiding Judge)