Method of determining whether a special distinction exists with respect to a combined trademark (service mark). Whether a service mark “AlphaGras” is a service mark consisting solely of a mark indicated in a common way in the nature of a computer and a traffic design business, which is its designated service business.

A. In light of the provisions of Article 6 of the Trademark Act, the term "special reproduction of a trademark (service mark)" means an indication of the distinctive character or the source of a service of a trademark (service) for a trade-related one's own goods. Thus, in the case of a combined trademark (service mark) in which letters, letters, figures and letters are combined, it is not based solely on the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark (service mark), but on the basis of whether ordinary traders or consumers can recognize the source of the goods (service mark) by the trademark (service mark).

B. In the context of “AlphaGras” which is the applied service mark, the term “Gracs” means “system, Docs” means technologies that indicate the output of a computer to brush, and then manipulate it into luminous, etc., “visual art works and graphic art works, etc.”, and “Alp” indicates “a” as the first person of the lessee, and combines it as a whole without any particular meaning and combines it with the designated service business of the applied service mark, the applied service mark can be perceived to ordinary consumers in view of its concept and the circumstances of the transaction society, and therefore, it cannot be deemed to be a service mark consisting solely of marks indicating the nature of the designated service business in a common way.

Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1208 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1291) 91Hu1427 delivered on February 11, 1992 (Gong1992, 1034) 91Hu1885 delivered on May 22, 192 (Gong192, 2021)

Attorney Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant and two others

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92Na2766 Dated March 25, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the provisions of Article 6 of the Trademark Act, the term "special reproduction of a trademark (service mark)" is generally interpreted as expressing the distinctive character of a trademark (service mark) or the source of a trademark (service mark) for a trade-related goods (service mark). Thus, in the case of a combined trademark (service mark), the combination of letters, letters, figures and letters shall not be based solely on the appearance, name, concept, etc. of the trademark (service mark), but shall be determined by observing the whole composition of the combined trademark (service mark), based on whether the trademark has distinctiveness of a trade-related goods (service mark) and whether ordinary traders or consumers can recognize the source of the goods (service mark) through the trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Hu1427, Feb. 11, 1992; 91Hu1885, May 22, 1992).

According to the records, in relation to “AlphaGs” which is the main service mark of this case, the term “Grasics” means “system, Docs” means “a technology that re-registers the output of computer with luminous, etc.”, “visual art works, graphic art works,” etc., and “Alpha” indicates “A” as the first person of the lessee’s original service mark in English, without any particular meaning and combining it as a whole, the original service mark may be perceived to ordinary consumers as “computer art works using computer or graphic art works using the computer or graphic art works,” in light of its concept and the circumstances of the trade society. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed as a service mark that consists solely of marks indicating the characteristics of the designated service business in a common way.

In the same purport, the original adjudication that maintained the circumstances of refusing the registration of the original service mark is somewhat insufficient, but its conclusion is just, and the court below did not consider the composition of the combined service mark as a whole in determining the special identity of the original service mark, and the same service mark as the original service mark is a precedent registered in a foreign country, or the applicant of this case has registered a trademark identical to the original service mark as the designated goods in the category of goods in the category of goods in the category of goods in the category of goods in the category of goods in the original service mark, and the conclusion of this case is not the same, and the precedents of the party members cited in the theory of lawsuit cannot be seen as appropriate in this case, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the registration requirements of the service mark such as the theory of the original service mark.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)