Kententna Mben Rober K. Carben Bec flush flussh flush (Law Firm Central LLC, Attorneys Yu Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

July 21, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on April 4, 2005 on the case 2004 Won5271 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

(a) the applied trademark/service mark of this case (which is an international application registered internationally under the Madrid Protocol and whose Republic of Korea is a designated State)

(1) International registration number: No. 811551

(2) The filing date/application date: the country of May 19, 2003

(3) Composition: Rogineling yourcompitivege

(4) Designated goods/service business: Machinery percussion tools, i.e., metal cut tools, cut tools, luminous tools, shamping and painting tools, tools attached, painting inserted materials, tools for use, tools for use, machs, nametoums, uting toums, clring tooths, shring and drawing, shring tool, shring and shring, shring, shring and 3rdre-processed goods and services, e.g., consultation and publication of goods and services, e.g., distribution of new and renewable goods and services, e.g.

B. The procedural background

(1) The Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal of registration on October 5, 2004 on the ground that the applied trademark/service mark of this case constitutes Article 6(1)7 of the Trademark Act, and that the Plaintiff filed an appeal for dissatisfaction, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on it as 2004 Won5271 and rendered the instant decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on the same ground as April 4 (2) of 2005.

(2) Summary of the grounds for the instant trial decision

The pending trademark service mark of this case is composed of four English words, and it can be interpreted as “a planning (a) processing the competitiveness of the party, and technology can be interpreted as “the competitiveness of the party.” As such, it is recognized as a kind of sign or slick that emphasizes technology and competitiveness to employees at a factory or workplace related to designated goods or services, there is no special character indicating the source of goods or services.

Therefore, the decision of the court below which rejected the registration of the applied trademark service mark falls under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act is justifiable.

[Evidence] No. 1, No. 1, No. 1-4

2. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the grounds for revoking the trial decision asserted by the plaintiff

The pending trademark service mark of this case is an original expression created by the Plaintiff, which is a creative expression created by the Plaintiff. Considering the level of general English distribution in Korea, it cannot be deemed that ordinary consumers have a sense of meaning such as “a planning and planning the competitiveness of the Party” and “the Party’s competitiveness”, and thus, the pending trademark service mark of this case has sufficient distinctiveness indicating the source of designated goods and service business, and thus does not fall under Article 6(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

The pending trademark service mark of this case can be interpreted as "measures to seek superior advantage in competition, to promote competitiveness," and it constitutes a kind of slick or slick that emphasizes the superior advantage or competitiveness in competition with another person's goods or services rather than being recognized as a trademark to identify another person's goods, and thus, constitutes Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

3. Determination

A. Purport of Article 6(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act provides that "a trademark which does not enable consumers to distinguish goods related to a person's business from those of subparagraphs 1 through 6" as one of the cases where a trademark cannot be registered. This provision provides that even if a trademark does not fall under any of subparagraphs 1 through 6, a trademark without a special distinction between one's own trademark and another's trademark shall not be registered. Whether a trademark has a special distinction is determined depending on whether the general consumer can recognize the source of the goods by the trademark in relation to a specific goods (Supreme Court Decision 94Hu906 delivered on September 27, 1994). Accordingly, a trademark that can be understood as being used ordinarily in relation to the designated goods or services has no special distinction as a trademark.

B. Whether the applied trademark/service mark of this case is a special distinction

The pending trademark service mark of this case is a mark consisting of four English language, such as "enging your," and among them, "engineing" means " engineering, technical activities, technical processing," "cometing," "edge" means both the meaning of "com-based competition," "com-based" means "com-based," "dge" means the word having the meaning of "engine, day, end, etc., except for "com-based" among them, "edge" means the word having the meaning of "engineing", "your", "edge" means any word that can easily understand its meaning if a person receives English education from each middle school in Korea, and "com-based" means that it is difficult for consumers to recognize the technical competitiveness of "com-based service business" as the subject of "com-based" or "com-based service mark," and thus, it is also difficult for consumers to recognize the technical competitiveness of the designated service mark of this case to use the "com-based product or service mark as the subject of "com-based".

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the pending trademark service mark falls under Article 6(1)7 of the Trademark Act, since it is a trademark service mark with no identification of goods related to anyone's business in relation to "metallic tools, cutting tools," or "technical consultation business related to the shape of tools and cutting devices" among the designated goods and designated service business among general consumers or traders, it constitutes a trademark service mark with no identification of goods related to anyone's business. In the application for trademark registration, where the requirements for trademark registration are not satisfied with respect to some designated goods as to the application for trademark registration, one decision should be made as to the application for the entire designated goods (see Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1360 delivered on December 21, 193). Thus, the decision of this case, which maintained the original decision rejecting the registration of the pending trademark service mark, is justifiable

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)