The case holding that a registered trademark "goo-rap" falls under a technical mark or is null and void because it falls under a quality-based trademark.

The case holding that the trademark "grap" of the registered trademark is a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating in a common way the shape of the designated goods (if the trademark is a car, chemical pulp plastic sheet, plastic sheet, plastic sheet, siumt) in a common way, and further, if the trademark is used for any designated goods other than 'boops' (contest), it is likely to mislead or confuse the quality of the goods, and its registration is null and void, since it is used as a common name for ordinary consumers at the time of the registration of this trademark.

Articles 8(1)3 (see current Article 6(1)3), 9(1)11 (see current Article 7(1)11), and 46 subparag. 1 (see current Article 7(1)1) of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 190);

Supreme Court Decision 93Hu527 delivered on March 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1193), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu760 delivered on February 3, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1162), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu2162 delivered on May 12, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 2126)

New loan Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney White-gu et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Crap Co., Ltd. (Attorney Song Young-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 94Na273 dated June 28, 1996

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined together.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the trademark of this case constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the shape of the designated goods in a common way, and further, if the trademark of this case is used for other designated goods than 'brap' (registration No. 1 omitted), it constitutes a trademark that is likely to mislead or confuse the quality of the goods, and the registration of the trademark of this case is null and void pursuant to Article 18 subparag. 13 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4139, Jun. 26, 1985); since the trademark of this case is used as a common name for packing films at the time of the registration decision of this case (registration No. 1 omitted); thus, general consumers or traders recognize the trademark of this case as the trademark of this case as "green brap" or "green brap's packaging films" or "green brap". Further, if the trademark of this case is used for other designated goods not 'brap' (registration No. 1 omitted). 1 omitted.

According to records and relevant laws, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, incomplete hearing, or violation of the precedents as pointed out in the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)