The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a trademark is similar to a trademark on the first ground of appeal should be determined by examining the concept of appearance name of the trademark from the perspective of ordinary consumers or traders, as a whole, objective, and differently, whether it is likely to cause misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of the product.

Even if there are different parts in the concept of appearance name, one similar trademark should be deemed as a similar trademark if it is easy for ordinary consumers or traders to mislead or confuse.

Even if the trademark as a whole can avoid mistake or confusion of sources clearly based on the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel on the trademark, it shall not be deemed similar in cases where the trademark can avoid mistake or confusion of sources.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu3415 Decided November 26, 2002, etc.). Examining the above legal principles in light of the records, the concept is identical in that the registered service marks (registration number C, designated goods cosmetics, etc.) composed of “” and the registered service marks (registration number F, designated service cosmetics, etc.) consisting of “natural friendship” can be perceived as both as “natural friendship.” However, the registered trademark of this case is referred to as “Neman Feman,” and the registered service marks are referred to as “natural goes off,” and thus there is a difference in appearance due to the existence of the figure portion and the difference between English and Korean.

Considering the importance of the appearance and name of a trademark in the transaction of designated goods, even if the concept is similar, the two marks are clearly distinguishable from their appearance and name, and thus, even if they are used in a similar product service business, general consumers or traders may avoid misconceptions about the origin of goods clearly.

Therefore, it is difficult to view the registered trademark of this case and the prior registered service mark as similar to each other.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is as the ground of appeal.