The purport of Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act and whether the trademark constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name as provided in Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act where the prior meaning of the English person is a conspicuous geographical name even though ordinary consumers, etc. are unable to express the meaning of the trademark in English (affirmative)

The purport of Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act, which provides for the trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name as a passive requirement for trademark registration, is to allow any person to use the trademark and to not grant any specific person the exclusive right to use the trademark because such trademark is not obvious and well-known. In light of such legislative intent, even if ordinary consumers or traders do not directly sense the meaning of the English language, the prior meaning of the above English language is 'NTRCICA', and as long as the Antarctic land, which is the concept of the above applied trademark, is widely known to the general consumers or customers in the Republic of Korea, it is not possible to obtain trademark registration with the geographical name provided by Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act, since the above applied trademark cannot be registered as a trademark with the geographical name provided by Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act.

Articles 6(1)4 and 23(1)1 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Hu90 Decided May 15, 1984 (Gong1984, 1127), Supreme Court Decision 85Hu103 Decided July 22, 1986 (Gong1986, 1110), Supreme Court Decision 86Hu157 Decided February 23, 198 (Gong198, 596), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1682 Decided August 22, 197 (Gong197Ha, 287)

Compacta tar Cr. Syeca Syeca Syeca (Patent Attorney Park Gyeong-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board(Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board) has filed a decision to revoke the trial decision on June 30, 1998.

1. Facts that no dispute exists;

(a) Details of the procedure at the Korean Intellectual Property Office;

On January 24, 1996, the plaintiff made an application for registration of a trademark consisting of the designated goods as shown in the attached Form No. 6 (1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 83 of Feb. 23, 1998) with respect to 18 products classified as category No. 5 of products (hereinafter referred to as "the above trademark is applied for registration"), but on June 25, 1997, the above trademark constitutes the category No. 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act since it is the mark of a mountainous district where it is used in luminous water, etc., which is the designated goods with the intent of landing in Antarctica, and it constitutes the category No. 1 of Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act because it is a conspicuous geographical name indicating the Antarctic land and thus, it constitutes the category No. 1 of the designated goods in Antarctica and the quality of the goods in Antarctica, which are unlikely to be mistaken.

On June 30, 1998, the plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the above rejection ruling and the registration of the trademark in this case, and the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Patent Trial and Appeal Board") reviewed the above appeal case as 97 U.S.C. 2259 and rendered a ruling dismissing the plaintiff's appeal for the same reasons as the above B.

B. Summary of the grounds for the instant decision

This decision was made as follows.

(1) The purport of Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act stipulating a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name as a passive requirement for trademark registration is to allow anyone to use the trademark and to refuse to grant a specific person the exclusive right to use the trademark because the trademark is not obvious and well-known, so that it does not allow any person to use the trademark, and even if a general consumer has to find a prior report, the objective meaning of the trademark cannot be denied. From this point of view, since the trademark "NTA" refers to the English prior landing in Antarctica, it constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name, it constitutes Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act.

(2) The Antarctic Republic of Korea does not recognize that the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case, such as luminous water, are not produced in the past, and this fact does not lead to the recognition that ordinary consumers are being produced in the Antarctic Republic of Korea. This case’s trademark does not include any other indication that only the English language indicating only the geographical name of the Antarctic Republic of Korea, and that it does not include any other indication that may cause a quality misunderstanding, and thus, it does not constitute a concern of misunderstanding of the quality of the designated goods. Thus, this case’s trademark does not fall under Articles 6(1)3 and 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act.

(3) Therefore, the rejection of the registration of the applied trademark by applying Article 6(1)4 of the Trademark Act is justifiable.

2. Grounds for revoking the trial decision of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that this case's trademark is not a trademark with a conspicuous geographical name widely known in the Republic of Korea, since it is not easy for general consumers or traders in the Republic of Korea without finding prior to the university's culture. Thus, this case's trademark is a geographical name called Antarctic land, but it cannot be easily recognized as a geographical name by the general consumers or traders in the Republic of Korea, so it cannot be seen as a trademark with a conspicuous geographical name (in our country, the trademark is registered with the same word as the case's trademark in this case's trademark in the Republic of Korea as the designated goods, and the trademark registration of Chapter 43 is subject to the registration of the trademark as the designated goods, and the trademark registration of this case's trademark is also subject to the public notice of the trademark registration as well as the trademark registration of this case's trademark registration of this case's trademark "with respect to the trademark of this case's trademark registration of this case's trademark of this case's name and trademark of this case's trademark registration of this case's trademark of this case's name and trademark registration of this case'.

3. Determination

A. In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant asserted that this case’s trademark is not eligible for trademark registration because it falls under Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act, and does not have any assertion as to the refusal of trademark registration as it falls under Articles 6(1)3 and 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act among the grounds for refusal of trademark registration of this case’s applied trademark (this case’s trademark does not fall under Articles 6(1)3 and 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act, and the Plaintiff also argued that this case’s trademark does not fall under Articles 6(1)3 and 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act. Thus, this case’s trademark falls under Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act.

B. The pending trademark is a trademark consisting of only the English language ‘NTRCICA', and according to the Gap evidence No. 4, the English language language, the meaning of the trademark is "NTRCIC", and it can be acknowledged that it is a language mark with the cultural knowledge of the university. Thus, it cannot be sense that the English language, the English language, the meaning of the trademark is "Anctic Congested". Thus, if many general consumers or traders who did not enter the university show the "NTRCICA", it cannot be directly viewed that the trademark of this case is 'NTATRA' without any permanent prior approval.

However, the purport of Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act stipulating a trademark consisting solely of a conspicuous geographical name as a passive requirement for trademark registration is that the trademark is intended to allow anyone or a certain person to freely use the trademark and not to grant a specific person the exclusive right to use the trademark because of its apparentness and well-knownness (Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1682 delivered on August 22, 1997). In light of such legislative intent, even if a general consumer or a trader does not directly sense the meaning of the above English language, the above prior meaning in the English language is "An Antarctica", and if the Antarctic land, which is the concept of the trademark applied for registration, is widely known to the general consumers or traders in the Republic of Korea, the above specific person's exclusive right to use the trademark is not granted as a trademark under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act, so long as it is a conspicuous geographical name, the trademark registration cannot be granted only by the geographical name prescribed by Article 6 (1) of the Trademark Act.

C. In addition, the existence of eligibility for registration of a trademark is of the nature to be determined individually according to each trademark, and as seen earlier, so long as the trademark applied for registration cannot be registered because it falls under the trademark under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act, the above trademark claimed by the Plaintiff is registered or announced publicly, it cannot be said that the applied trademark can be registered on the ground that the trademark applied for registration is registered or announced publicly.

D. Therefore, this case's trademark cannot be registered under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act. Thus, this case's trial decision is just and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Senior Superintendent (Presiding Judge)