(A) Whether the mark “CAR =TEN, Ka-Tu” has distinctiveness (negative)

(A) The mark "CAR=TEN" is a mark used for the detailed preparation to remove the ice of a motor vehicle, building, etc., which is not a distinctive mark indicating the purpose of the goods used. The combination of CAR with 10 English TN, a simple number of which indicates the serial numbers of the goods, cannot be deemed as a new distinctive character. Thus, CAR =TEN has no distinctive character in relation to the detailed preparation for motor vehicles, and CAR =TEN has no distinctive character in relation to the detailed preparation for motor vehicles, and the CAR =TEN is merely a mere distinctive character in Korean (i.e., the general English origin of CAR is not a CAR=CN). Accordingly, CAR's general English origin cannot be deemed as not a CAR =TN's Korean origin. Ultimately, it cannot be deemed as a distinctive mark as a whole.

Article 6(1)3, Article 51 subparag. 2, and Article 75 of the Trademark Act

P&AB Co., Ltd. (formerly changed trade name: Pakistan) (Patent Attorney Song-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 200Heo6547 delivered on April 20, 2001

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) since the mark "CAR-10" and (a) "CAR-10" are both identical and similar to the trademark of this case (registration number omitted); (b) since all goods using the trademark of this case are similar to those belonging to the goods of this case designated goods of this case, (a) Item (a) falls under the scope of the right of the trademark of this case; and (a) the trademark of this case falls under the scope of the trademark of this case, and (a) the trademark of this case falls under the scope of the right of the trademark of this case, and (b) the trademark of this case falls under the scope of the trademark of this case and the trademark of "CAR-10" is difficult to conclude that the other part "TN" has no distinctive character with a simple and mixed mark, it cannot be deemed that the trademark of this case is merely the combination of "CAR-EN" in Korean, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the trademark of this case does not fall under the trademark of this case.

However, according to the records, the mark (A) is used for the detailed business to remove the ice of a motor vehicle, building, etc., and the CAR portion is an undistinctive mark indicating the use of the goods, and it cannot be viewed as a new distinctive character only by linking 10 English TN, a simple figure representing the serial number of the goods, etc., with CAR =TEN, and thus, the "CAR" has no distinctive character in relation to the detailed business for motor vehicles, and the CAR =TEN is deemed to be merely a mere translitation of the CAR's "CAR" in Korean (the general English language of CAR cannot be deemed to be the Korean language page of CAR =TEN). Accordingly, since the mark is not a distinctive character as a whole, it cannot be deemed to have been registered under Article 51 subparagraph 2 of the Trademark Act.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the (a) mark falls under the scope of the right of the registered trademark of this case as a mark with distinctiveness. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles under Article 51 subparagraph 2 of the Trademark Act. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)