[1] The purpose of Article 6(1)3 of the former Trademark Act and the standard for determining whether a trademark is a technical (technical) mark

[2] Whether the trademark "SOFTLIPS", which is a "non-commercial direction-setting for the designated goods, constitutes a technical (technical) mark under Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (affirmative)

[1] Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 535 of Aug. 22, 1997) provides that "No trademark shall be registered for a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating in a common way the origin, quality, raw material, efficacy, use, use, quantity, shape, price, production method, processing method, use method, or time of goods". The purport of the above provision is that such technical (technical) mark is an indication necessary in the distribution process of goods, and it is necessary for anyone to use it, and if it is intended to use it, it is difficult to distinguish it from others' goods, and if it is permitted to use it, it is difficult to distinguish it from others' like goods. Whether it constitutes it should be determined objectively in consideration of the concept possessed by the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the circumstances of the trade society, etc.

[2] The applied trademark "SOFTIPS is a mark consisting solely of the English language and it means "SOFT" of the preceding part, and the latter part's "LIPS" is a multiple type of "LIP" of "LIP" of the meaning that the latter part's "emulation," and these words are easily known if they are the academic achievement level of the middle school in our country. Although the applied trademark is displayed without holding two words, they are composed of the words that can easily be easily known to the general consumers in our country, general consumers can report the applied trademark and directly use the applied trademark, and considering that the designated goods of the applied trademark are influence and feet, or that the designated goods of the applied trademark are "non-fluencing directions" of "non-flucing directions to prevent blood transfusion," the latter part's "LIPS can be directly used for the designated goods in a way that can directly use them."

[1] Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997) / [2] Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Hu154 delivered on November 12, 1999 (Gong199Ha, 2512) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 82Hu41 delivered on January 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 371) 96Hu1729 delivered on May 23, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 1874), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu396 delivered on December 12, 1997 (Gong198Sang, 296), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu1702, 1719 delivered on July 24, 198 (Gong198Ha, 2236) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu3979 delivered on May 29, 197 (Gong199, 297Ha, 2939 decided July 29, 297)

Furthermore, Cambodia (Law Firm Central Patent Office, Attorneys Lee Don-e et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 99Heo3689 delivered on August 13, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997; hereinafter the same) provides that "No trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating in a common way the origin, quality, raw materials, efficacy, use, quantity, shape, price, production method, processing method, method or time of goods shall be registered."

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the purport of the above provision is that the above technical (technical) mark is necessary for the distribution process of goods, so it is necessary for anyone to use it, and that it is difficult to distinguish it from others' like goods if it is permitted to use it exclusively, and that it is hard to distinguish it from others' like goods. Whether a trademark constitutes it should be determined objectively in light of the concept of the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods and the circumstances of the trade society, etc., such as the concept of the trademark, the trademark "SOFT" of the preceding part is composed only of the English language, such as SOFLIPS, and the latter part's "LIPS" is a multiple-choice of the meaning of "LOIPS", and these words are composed of the English language, the meaning of "LOIPS" of the above part, and these words are easily known to the level of educational background of the middle school in our country, but they can easily be seen as the general consumers or the general consumers can easily use the word as the designated goods.

In light of the records and the purport of Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act, the decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to technical marks, as otherwise alleged in the plaintiff's ground of appeal. The Supreme Court precedents cited in the ground of appeal are different from the case,

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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)