[1] Criteria for determining whether a trademark constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods in a common way under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act

[2] The case holding that there are grounds for rejection of registration falling under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act on the ground that there is a high probability that the applied service mark " " is related to the business of selling as an agent the sales agency "," which has the nature and efficacy of fire prevention and prevention

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu1140 Decided August 16, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1552), Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu2595 Decided January 26, 2006 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Hu386 Decided April 21, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1296)

Plaintiff

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2004Heo7227 delivered on January 21, 2005

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Whether a trademark constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act in a common way, shall be objectively determined by taking into account the concept of the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the degree of ordinary consumers or traders’ understanding and awareness of the trademark, the circumstances of the trade society, etc. Such legal doctrine applies likewise to service marks under Article 2(3) of the Trademark Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Hu386, Apr. 21, 200; 2005Hu2595, Jan. 26, 2006).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just and acceptable to determine that the registered service mark of this case (application No. 2002-22814) is a ground for rejection of registration falling under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act to the effect that it is highly probable that the registered service mark of this case (application No. 2002-22814) is related to the business of selling as an agent the "water or paint" with the nature and efficacy of fire prevention and prevention, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as

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.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)