Evidence for the use of a trademark does not necessarily mean to use the trademark alone. However, in the case where the trademark-at-dispute for the registration application does not have naturally-born distinctiveness, the actual use is often a use that combines the trademark-at-dispute and other trademarks that consumers see as an obvious indication of the product source. Then, the applicant has to provide longer-period or more, advertising or marketing data to prove that consumers have changed their recognition and that they have associated the trademark-at-dispute with a specific product provider such that the function of indicating products is acquired. Then, the after-birth distinctiveness is acquired. The above-mentioned evidence of the use provided by Plaintiff has been taken into overall consideration. Most are a use that incorporates other trademarks. And, the objective situation is that the trademark-at-dispute is often mixed or combined with other ornamental patterns. So, it is hard to say that the trademark-at-dispute has been used by Plaintiff and transactionally known to relevant consumers as an identification mark that stands for Plaintiff´s products, so that the after-birth distinctiveness is acquired. Therefore, the rule vested in Article 23, Paragraph 4 of the Trademark Act is not applicable.

After-birth distinctiveness