TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2015Hu2174 Decided September 12, 2017¡¼Denial Adjudication (Trademark)¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] Standard of determining whether a mark without distinctiveness has acquired distinctiveness by use, making it eligible for trademark registration under Article 6(2) of the former Trademark Act Whether this legal doctrine likewise applies to service marks (affirmative) [2] In the case where Company A applied for the pending service mark ¡°¡± with lending business as its designated service, but the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) rendered an adjudication denying registration on the ground that, inter alia, it falls under Article 6(1) Subparags. 3 and 7 of the former Trademark Act, the case holding that, although the pending service mark is not independently indicated in the marks actually in use, in view of all the circumstances, the pending service mark acquired distinctiveness by use under the provisions of Article 6(2) of the former Trademark Act

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2017Da237186 Decided September 21, 2017¡¼Avoidance of Fraud¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2015Da70044 Decided September 12, 2017¡¼Damages (Etc.)¡½