logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1987. 2. 10. 선고 86후54 판결
[거절사정][공1987.4.1.(797),437]
Main Issues

Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy ("3M")

Summary of Judgment

A trademark consisting of simple and ordinary marks, which combines Arabic 3's "three" and "M" merely constitutes a trademark consisting of a simple and ordinary mark. On the other hand, if it is difficult to see that the above trademark is recognized as a trademark of an applicant among consumers as a result of the prior use of the application, it cannot be registered pursuant to Article 8 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 8 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act

Applicant-Appellant

The Patent Attorney Park Young-dae, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Appellee

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

original decision

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 85 Section 194 dated February 28, 1986

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the appellant.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the original adjudication is just a trademark consisting of simple and ordinary marks, since the trademark applied for 10 items, such as grabs, laund cleaning laund, etc., belonging to Class 14 of the product classification, was merely combined with "3M" and "M", and as a result, it is difficult to see that the above trademark is clearly recognized as a trademark of a petitioner for an appeal among consumers as a result of the prior use of the trademark prior to the filing of the application, and therefore, it is not possible to obtain registration pursuant to Article 8 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act. In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision are acceptable and acceptable, or there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 8 (1) 6 and (2) of the Trademark Act.

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 judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)

arrow