[1] Whether the trademark "ETRINT", which is a printing machine, has distinctiveness (negative)

[2] Whether the eligibility for registration of a trademark should be determined by each trademark (affirmative)

[3] Whether a foreign registration example is considered in determining whether a trademark is registered (negative)

[1] The term "PRINT" in the applied trademark "E PRINT has the purport of "printed, printed, or printed" and it is not distinctive in relation to the designated goods such as "printing presses". The term "E" is merely a simple and trace mark as one of the alphababa, and it is not a form of a new concept or distinctive character by combining the "E" and the "PRINT" with the "E" as a whole. Therefore, the applied trademark has no distinctive character in light of its overall aspects.

[2] Whether a trademark is eligible for registration shall be determined individually according to each trademark in relation to the designated goods. Thus, even if a trademark identical or similar to a trademark applied for registration of a trademark is registered differently from the designated goods, the registration of the trademark applied for registration does not necessarily have to be permitted.

[3] Whether registration of an applied trademark should be independently determined under the Korean Trademark Act, but it is not a legal system or language habitor of another foreign country's registration example.

[1] Article 6 (1) of the Trademark Act / [2] Articles 6 and 7 of the Trademark Act / [3] Articles 6 and 7 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1477 delivered on May 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 676), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu26, 33 delivered on May 23, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2269), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu163 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 353 delivered on May 14, 1997), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu163 delivered on September 26, 195 (Gong1995Ha, 353 delivered on May 14, 1996), Supreme Court Decision 9Hu1463 delivered on May 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 187 delivered on April 197, 197)

IndigoNB (Patent Attorney Lee Im-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 95Na1238 dated September 30, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Examining the reasoning for the original adjudication in light of the relevant laws and regulations, the term "PRINT" among the trademark applied for the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "E PRINT") has the purport of "printed, printed, and printed, and printed" as the designated goods, and the term "E" is nothing more than a simple and sealed mark as one of the English Alphaphabababababa, and it does not form a new concept or distinctive character by combining the "E" and the "PRINT" as a whole, so the original trademark has no distinctive character, and the evidence submitted by the applicant alone cannot be deemed as remarkably recognized by domestic consumers as indicating whose goods it indicates in connection with his/her business, and the court below's decision that rejected the registration of the original trademark of this case is justifiable, and the decision of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

The precedents or cases pointed out in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and it is not appropriate to invoke it, and the existence or absence of a trademark registration shall be determined individually according to each trademark in relation to the designated goods. Thus, even if a trademark of a mark identical or similar to a trademark of the main source of household is registered differently from the designated goods, the registration in this case does not necessarily require permission (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1170 delivered on March 28, 1997). Furthermore, whether a trademark registration of the main source of household is registered independently pursuant to the Korean Trademark Act should be determined independently in relation to the designated goods under the Korean Trademark Act, and the legal system or language habits does not go against any other foreign registration examples (see Supreme Court Decision 95Hu64 delivered on May 26, 1995). The grounds of appeal inconsistent with this cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)