Costs of appeal shall be borne by the person who has been requested for adjudication.

1. Whether or not a trademark is similar under the Trademark Act shall be determined by the method of objectively, overall, and different observation of the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of product and determining whether or not there is a possibility of confusion among each of the goods in the trade, even if any, it is the opinion of the party members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 65Hu18, Nov. 22, 1966; 63Hu41, Dec. 28, 1965). As such, the original judgment was first registered (registration No. 1 omitted) and after the respondent's registration (registration No. 2 omitted), and the trademark (registration No. 1 omitted), which is the trademark registration number of the trademark, was different from the original judgment in terms of appearance and concept, and it was contrary to Article 15(1)4 of the Trademark Act, which means that there was a concern of confusion as to the trademark's trademark registration number which is similar to that of the trademark in light of social norms in the trade.

2. In light of the fact that Article 1(1) of the Trademark Act separates the trademark from the trademark and the business mark, among the definition of the trademark in Article 1(1) of the same Act, the trademark is a means to indicate goods used to distinguish one's goods from another's goods, among the exhibitions (registration No. 1 omitted) by claimant in the original judgment (registration No. 1 omitted), the trademark "S. Danana", which is the trademark, separates the "S. Dana" from the "S. Danana" which is the main part of the trademark from the "S. Danana" and "Dana" which is the part of the trademark's display (registration No. 1 omitted) and "S. Danana" which is the trademark's display (registration No. 2 omitted) which is the trademark registration No. 1 of the above trademark, it cannot be said that there was an error of law in observing the comparison with the above "S. Donanana" as stated in its reasoning.

3. In addition, it is not found that there was an error of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles on measures and incomplete hearing, which concluded that the original judgment was a similar name to the extent that it might cause mistake or confusion as to the designated goods in the transactional system, after reviewing various decisions and litigation materials in light of the common sense of commercial transaction, and considering them comprehensively and in light of them, the above "Dana" and "Manana" as to the title, and there is no evidence to prove that there was an error such as misunderstanding of the legal principles on measures and insufficient deliberation.

Therefore, according to the consistent opinion of all participating judges, it is decided as ordered in accordance with the opinion.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu