|
In a case where the KIPO rejected a registration application under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act as to Gap's applied service mark " " with Mexican food specialty restaurant business, etc. as a designated service business; Gap appealed; and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for the same reason, the case holding that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle in granting a registration although the applied service mark constitutes a case of Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act which can not receive a service mark registration as of the time of the above decision
|
