[1] Criteria for determining whether a trademark constitutes technical trademark under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

[2] The case holding that the applied trademark "WATSINE is a technical mark consisting solely of a mark indicating the characteristics of raw materials, efficacy, use, etc. in a common way, on the ground that it is recognized as a "water pipe" in relation to the "water distribution equipment, etc. for home, office use, etc." as the main parts or main functions of the designated goods, and ordinary consumers or traders recognize them as the "water distribution equipment, etc. for home and office use"

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu2595 Decided January 26, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu2786 Decided July 28, 2006

[Defendant-Appellant] Puu Doz. (Attorney Hwang Young-ju et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2007Heo2391 Decided June 28, 2007

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

Whether a trademark constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, raw materials, efficacy, use, etc. of goods under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act in a common way shall be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark, the designated goods’ relationship with the designated goods, the circumstances of the transaction society, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Hu2595, Jan. 26, 2006; 2005Hu2786, Jul. 28, 2006, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the applied trademark of this case is a trademark composed of "WAERININE" combined with "WATER" and "LINE," and "WAINE," and "WAINE," and "LINE," and "LINE" are the word "WAINE" and "LINE" are the word "WAINE" and "LINE" means a line, line, path, conduit, conduit, etc., and considering the level of domestic fishery distribution in Korea, it is reasonable to see that the general consumers or transaction parties combined the above two words with "WAERININE" as meaning "WAERINE" among the various prior meanings in the judgment of the court below, it is reasonable to see that the trademark of this case is the technical purpose of the designated goods, such as the passage or pipe (water pipe) composed of the main parts of the designated goods or the main functions of the goods, and thus, it constitutes the technical function of the trademark of this case, etc. using the designated goods in accordance with its main functions.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the trademark of this case does not constitute a technical mark on the ground that it is difficult for consumers to directly understand the meaning of the trademark of this case as the water pipe, and even if the water pipe was directly reduced, the trademark of this case does not constitute a technical mark on the ground that the main function of the designated goods distributing water is expressed even if the water pipe was directly reduced. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on technical marks, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)