On appeal, LG submitted that the hearing officer was wrong: "intelligent sensor" described neither the goods nor any of their essential characteristics, being an arbitrarily created and fanciful term.

Dismissing the appeal, the Appointed Person considered that, although marks could be registrable even if they did not demonstrate a particularly high level of inventiveness, the registrability of such marks depended on whether the particular combination of the words used could be seen as describing either the goods or some quality of them. Whether the particular mark was objectionable for the specification of goods was a question for the hearing officer. This was a borderline one and another hearing officer may have found the mark sufficiently vague to avoid being objectionable on the absolute ground of descriptivensss. As to absence of distinctive quality the Appointed Person agreed that the hearing officer was entitled to conclude that the mark was essentially "origin neutral" and that consumers would not see it as indicating that the goods originated from a particular source.

You can read this decision in full here.