Although a trademark proprietor can use two or more trademark designs in combination, upon determining the distinctiveness of the respective trademark, the level of the strength with respect to its impression given to the relevant consumers by these two or more trademarks used in combination shall be considered, and even more evidence of trademark use might be necessary to prove that the relevant consumers have known the source of the product or service identified by the respective trademark while being able to distinguish the same with the product or service by others. Nevertheless, the evidence of trademark use submitted by the Plaintiff is mostly used in combination with the foreign language “A” or “B design”, it is therefore that the foreign language “A” or “B design” has objectively become the major portion for identifying the source of the product, and the impression given to the relevant consumers by simply “C” is merely a decorative design for the product itself. As a result, the simple geometric figure “C” of the trademark at issue cannot be deemed as having successfully acquired distinctiveness simply because of its use with the foreign language “A” or “B design” in combination.