(a) The register of the main document “EUGENE TECTHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT element as a designated business for pharmaceutical research and development;

(b) Criteria for determining whether a trademark indicates the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods;

A. The term "EUGEEE" in the main term "EUGENE" in the letter letter service of "EUGEECH", which consists of six kinds of restricted research and development and food research and development as a designated business, shall be deemed to be a "eugenic" and the term "TECH" in the letter service of this source, which means "a person who has a scientific excellent character," etc., or "a craft, industry, or technology," or the term "techiz" in the English letter with the meaning of "craft, industry, medical professional, or technology," shall be deemed to be the empirical rule of the general trade society, and in addition, it shall be deemed that the term "Echiic" or "techiz" refers to technology, etc. in the field of industrial or technical sector, and it shall not be deemed that today's general trade is an ordinary society, and it shall not be directly designated to the general consumers as a mark of this case and its related research and development and non-technical development as a whole, and it shall not be deemed to be designated as a "non-technical development or non-technical person."

B. Whether a trademark indicates the quality, efficacy, use, shape, etc. of the designated goods must be objectively determined in light of the concept of the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the actual circumstances of the transaction society, etc.

Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Hu98 delivered on November 25, 1980, 84Hu36 delivered on September 10, 1985

Attorney Cho Jong-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

On January 31, 1986, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 335 (No. 335) 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that this letter service is a cross-section 8, such as English and reading "EUGNE TECTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT, and applied for registration of six businesses such as group 112 restricted research and development and food research and development, etc., but this letter service "EUGE" in this letter service is an "eugenic" with the meaning of "mal and excellent character," "eugenic" with the meaning of "craft, industry, technology, etc.", or "non-technical research and development, etc.", or "non-technical research and development, etc." with the meaning of "art, industry, medical professional," and it is often a common rule of experience in the trade society to recognize it as a "non-technical research and development, etc." with the meaning of "non-technical research and development, etc." in the above letter service, and thus, it is often a general user's term and its meaning.

Whether a trademark indicates the quality, efficacy, use, shape, etc. of the designated goods or not shall be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark, relationship with the designated goods, and the circumstances of the trade society (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Hu98, Nov. 25, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 84Hu36, Sept. 10, 1985). From this point of view, considering the decision of the court below in light of the records, the above fact-finding decision of the court below and its determination are justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles as to the ex officio hearing, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the fishbaster pursuant to Article 2 (5) of the Trademark Act, since the case presented by a party member is different from this case, the above decision of the court below is justified.

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

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)