logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.07.10 2016후526
거절결정(상)
Text

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

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 6(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) provides that “No trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating in a common way the origin, quality, raw materials, efficacy, use, quantity, shape (including shapes of packages), price, production method, processing method, use method or time of goods shall be registered.”

The purport of the above provision is that such a mark is a technical mark indicating the characteristics of the goods in order to identify the goods, and it is often lost the function of distinguishing the goods, and even if it has the function of distinguishing the goods, it is necessary to anyone in the transaction of the goods, and thus, it is unreasonable for a certain specific person to exclusively use the mark in the public interest.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Hu3800, Oct. 15, 2014; 99Hu2549, Feb. 22, 2000). Whether a trademark constitutes a trademark under the foregoing provision ought to be objectively determined by taking into account the concept possessed by the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the circumstances of the transaction society, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3042 Decided November 29, 2007, etc.). Meanwhile, with respect to the so-called combined trademark consisting of two or more constituent parts, whether a trademark has distinctiveness ought to be determined by deeming the entire constituent parts as one and its distinctive character.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Hu2306, Feb. 26, 2015; 91Hu1427, Feb. 11, 1992). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies to service marks pursuant to Article 2(3) of the former Trademark Act.

2.(a)

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the following circumstances are revealed.

1 The pending trademark/service mark of this case consists of “” and is categorized as “Class 4.”

arrow