A. Whether the applied trademark “DE-IC” is a technical trademark under Article 8(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) (affirmative)

B. Whether the above applied trademark is "a trademark which misleads consumers as to the quality of the goods or is likely to mislead consumers" under Article 9 (1) 11 of the same Act (affirmative)

A. The applicant’s trademark “DE-IC” refers to a tamper used to mean “DE” and “NIC” as a word trademark connecting “DE” and “NIC,” and the “NIC” is one of three designated goods of “NICTINE” and its designated goods are tobacco and smoking, and its general consumers are at least those aged above the degree of graduation from high school. In light of the above age’s education and education, the applicant’s proportion of English language in tobacco, the main ingredients of tobacco are not only nicotine, but also the importance of nicotine’s health, etc., and it is difficult to view that the applicant’s designated goods are no more than 10 of the former Trademark Act, or that the applicant’s designated goods are no more than 10 of the former Trademark Act, and it is difficult to view that the applicant’s designated goods are subject to 30 of the former Trademark Act, which are the trademark attached to the tobacco, etc., or that the applicant’s designated goods are no more than 10 of the latter.

B. The above applied trademark is likely to mislead ordinary consumers as to its quality when used on the designated goods, such as tobacco, etc. Accordingly, the applied trademark constitutes “a trademark which misleads consumers as to the quality of goods or might mislead consumers as to the quality of goods” as provided in Article 9(1)11 of the same Act.

A. Article 8(1)3(b) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

Patent Attorney Na Young-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92.27.27.27. 90 Appellant 1535

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

Whether a trademark has become a trademark solely composed of a mark indicating in a common way the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of goods under Article 8(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be objectively determined by taking into account the concept of the trademark, the common quality, efficacy, and circumstances of the trade society of the goods in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Hu69, Sept. 23, 1986; 86Hu18, Mar. 10, 1987).

In this case, the term “DE-IC” means that the applicant omitted part of the word “DE” and applied for the term “DE” and “NIC” as a word trademark connecting “DE” and “NIC,” and the term “NIC” is one of the three designated goods of “NICTRE” and its designated goods are “NIC” and “NIC” as they are tobacco and smoking, and its general consumers are at least those aged above the degree of graduation from high school (the gender is the primary consumer). In light of the above age’s educational background level or curriculum, it is difficult to view that the applicant’s main ingredients of tobacco have been removed or reduced in terms of nicotine’s health as well as nicotine’s importance, etc., and thus, it is difficult to view that it is a mere removal or decrease in the content of nicotine’s designated goods.

Therefore, the original trademark shall be a mark indicating the quality of the designated goods under Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act in a common way, and the judgment of the court below is just in its purport, and it is not reasonable in the original trial decision that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above provision, incomplete hearing, or incomplete reasoning.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

As seen earlier, if "DE-N" is attached to a tobacco, etc., which is its designated goods, general consumers recognize that nicotine is removed or reduced in its content. However, according to the records, it can be recognized that the tobacco produced by the applicant contains nicotine in accordance with its standard 0.04 g or 0.06 g, among the tobacco produced by the applicant, it can be recognized that general consumers report the original trademark and that the tobacco manufactured by the applicant does not contain nicotine. Thus, if the original trademark is used for the designated goods, such as tobacco, it is likely for general consumers to misunderstand the quality of the goods, and therefore, it seems that the original trademark falls under a trademark that might mislead consumers about the quality of goods or mislead consumers. Since the judgment of the court below is justifiable, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above provision or incomplete deliberation or incomplete guidance as to the original decision, and there is no ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal by the applicant is without merit, 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)