(a) Registration of a trademark emphasizing the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of goods not recognizable to the general public;

(b) Whether “NDRI” can be registered as a trademark (affirmative)

A. The issue of whether a trademark applied for registration cannot be registered under Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act because it is added to the display of the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of the goods, shall be determined according to the transaction circumstances of the goods concerned, since the meaning of the provision is that it is difficult to distinguish the trademark from the request of the public interest that the trademark cannot be used exclusively for a specific person, and it is difficult to distinguish the trademark from the other person's like goods. Even if the trademark appears to indicate or emphasize the quality, efficacy, and purpose of the designated goods, it shall not be deemed that the ordinary trader or consumers cannot be perceived as indicating the simple quality, efficacy, use, etc. of the designated goods in light of the overall composition of the trademark.

B. The English language "NDAI" among the "NDAI" does not mean that "NDAI" does not mean "NDA" in the English language, but it is merely a combination of the English name "BA" with the intent to return to the nearest place, and thus it cannot be said that there is no means to suggest that the original trademark may be used for the designated goods in light of the document bags of 25 kinds of goods classification, the document bags, handbags, bridges, Schlages, and Bostons, etc., which are the designated goods. However, it is difficult to see that the designated goods are the bags, etc., and it is difficult to see that the designated goods are used only for the designated goods, to the extent that the general trader or consumers can directly recognize the effects and use of the goods, and in view of the domestic trade situation, it is difficult to see that the trademark "B" is indicated only by the document bags, handbag, dock, domin, Stton, Stton case, and efficacy.

Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

claimant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office's appeal No. 697 of April 30, 1982 No. 1982

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below supported the ruling of rejection on the ground that among the original trademarks, English letters "B" are merely English letters written in accordance with the words "B" and its concept and meaning are identical to those of the original trademark "B". The original trademark "B" is a symbol with the purport that "B" promptly think it would return to the original trademark and come to a close place, and is related to the bank, such as handbags, Bostons, and Bostons, which are designated goods, it cannot be registered as a trademark because it is directly stagddd by the use of the goods, and it is not possible to register as a trademark as it indicates the use of the goods.

2. Whether a trademark which cannot be registered because it consists solely of a mark indicating in a common way the origin, quality, efficacy, use, quantity, shape, method of production, processing, method of use, or time of the goods as prescribed by Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act is difficult to distinguish the meaning of the above provision from the public interest request that the trademark cannot be used exclusively for a specific person's exclusive use, and it is difficult to distinguish the meaning of the above provision from the other person's goods' relationship with the like goods. Thus, even if it appears that the trademark indicates that it indicates the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of the designated goods, it is difficult to determine it according to the trade situation of the goods, and it is difficult to view that the ordinary trader or consumers can not be seen as indicating the mere quality, efficacy, or use of the designated goods, and it is also difficult to view that the trademark "this trademark cannot be seen as an exclusive use of the designated goods, such as those of those of those of those of those goods, and it cannot be seen as an exclusive use of those of those of those of those goods.

3. Therefore, the court below's rejection of a complaint against the rejection ruling of registration by the claimant that the main trademark and its designated goods are directly sensitive to the main trademark and its designated goods, without examining the register of registration of the main trademark, has a reason for appeal, since the court below's rejection of a complaint against the rejection ruling of registration by the claimant cannot be dismissed, since it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of the Trademark Act and recognized facts without any evidence.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who reverse the original adjudication and remand the case to the appellate trial office.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)