“ ” 상표의 거절에 대하여 [특허심판원 2017.7.5. 심결 2016원251, 특허법원 2017.12.21. 선고 2017허6446 거절결정(상)]

A Case Study Regarding Trademark Appeal Board Case No. 2016WON251 and Patent Court Case No. 2017HUR6446 against Examiner’s Rejection for “ ” for services in Classes 10 and 41

The Korean Trademark Office rejected “ ” for the services “education, entertainment, communication, broadcasting etc” in Classes 38 and 41 under the grounds that the mark is descriptive in connection with the designated services under Article 6 Section 1 Paragraph 3 of Korean Trademark Act and that the mark is lack of distinctiveness under Article 6 Section 1 Paragraph 7 of Korean Trademark Act. The Patent Court affirmed the Trademark Office’s decision. The Patent Court dismissed the applicant’s arguments that the subject mark was registered in many countries for the same goods, reasoning that the examination for registrability of a mark should be carried out by their own standards and criteria. “travel” or “CHANNEL” could be generic or descriptive in connection with the designated services. However, the combination of the terms, “ travel CHANNEL ” is not generic or descriptive. The combination of the terms, “ travel CHANNEL ” is not required to describe the characteristics of the services. Furthermore, the subject mark consists of the letters in the black color device. The subject mark has a sufficient distinctiveness to indicate the origin of services.