カテゴリー: 2019

JPO rejects 3D Shape Mark of Giant Cotton Candy

Posted on

In a dispute of registrability to a unique three-dimensional shape of giant cotton candy, the Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) refused protection of the 3D mark due to lack of distinctiveness.  
[Appeal case no. 2017-9666, Gazette issue date: September 27, 2019]

TOTTI CANDY FACTORY

If you ever visit Harajuku (Tokyo) chances are you will spot people carrying around gigantic pastel-colored cotton candy. When you think of cotton candy, a balloon-size blob of sticky blue or pink fluff probably comes to mind. But this cotton candy is here to rewrite any preconceptions you have about the treat, because not only does it come in the most beautiful shades of pastel you’ve ever seen, it’s also legitimately larger than your head. It’s so big, it’s actually hard to take a cute picture holding it — because it blocks your entire face with its pretty rainbow hues.

You can find this giant rainbow cotton candy at a sweet shop popular with young people in Harajuku, Totti Candy Factory.

3D shape of the cotton candy was applied for registration with JPO in respect of confectionery (class 30) on May 20, 2016. [TM application no. 2016-54840]

Registrability of 3D shape mark

The shape of a product can be an important element that generates value for a company. For this reason, the protection of three-dimensional forms is of commercial interest. Three-dimensional trademarks include the shape of a product or its packaging. Prior to 1996, there was no proper statutory provision that recognized three-dimensional shapes as trademarks. 1996 revision to the Trademark Law recognized 3D shape trademarks such as the shape of the packaging and specific product shapes. Now, a Trademark Registration can be attained for any distinctive three-dimensional shapes, that discern the goods or services of one business from those of other businesses, under the Japan Trademark law.

JPO Examination

JPO examiner entirely rejected the 3D shape mark by stating that:

“Appearance of the applied mark in color can be perceived merely as an ordinary three-dimensional shape of cotton candy. If so, the shape is deemed equivalent to a configuration solely consisting of the shape of goods in a common manner to the extent that relevant traders and/or consumers are unlikely to recognize the shape as a source indicator. Hence, the mark is subject to Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law. From the produced evidence, it is questionable whether the shape has acquired distinctiveness as a result of substantial use.”

Article 3(1)(iii) is a provision to prohibit any mark from registering where the mark solely consists of elements just to indicate, in a common manner, the place of origin, place of sale, quality, raw materials, efficacy, intended purpose, quantity, shape (including shape of packages), price, the method or time of production or use.

To dispute the refusal, applicant, an owner of Totti Candy Factory, filed an appeal on June 30, 2017.

Appeal Board’s decision

The Appeal Board affirmed examiner’s rejection of the 3D shape based on lack of distinctiveness. As grounds for rejection, Board cited following conical cotton candies in several colors distributed by third parties.

In addition, the Board negated acquired distinctiveness of the 3D shape by stating that:

  1. Allegedly applicant has used applied mark on cotton candy since February 2015, however, he failed to produce objective evidence of its first use.
  2. In general, cotton candy is consumed by individuals in a wide age range. If so, three brick-and-mortar shops at Harajuku (Tokyo), Shinsaibashi (Osaka), Nagoya PARCO (Aichi) are insufficient to demonstrate increased publicity among relevant consumers all over the country.
  3. According to the produced sales record, from the period of February 2015 through June 2017 applicant sold 370,302 pieces of Giant Rainbow Cotton Candy, amounting to 200 million JP-yen in total sales. However, its market share remains unclear.
  4. A fact that Totti Giant Cotton Candy has gotten popular with young women in their teens and early 20’s is insufficient to admit acquire distinctiveness of the 3D shape since consumers of cotton candy are not limited to young women.
  5. Advertisement and publications of Giant Rainbow Cotton Candy contains a term “TOTTI CANDY FACTORY” or “Totti” adjacent to the 3D shape. From these evidences, it is questionable whether relevant consumers would conceive the 3D shape in itself as a source indicator of Totti Candy Factory.

Based on the foregoing, the Board consequently refused to register the mark based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law.

Chloé Victorious in Trademark Battle

Posted on

In a recent administrative trademark decision, the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) upheld an opposition to the registration of “CHLOEFRANCIS” on the ground that it is likely to cause confusion with a French fashion house, Chloe.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900048, Gazette issued date: August 30, 2019]

CHLOEFRANCIS

Opposed mark, a word mark “CHLOEFANCIS” in standard character was applied for registration on May 25, 2017 for ‘shoes’ in class 25 by Kabushiki Kaisha Jay Jay Japan, a Japanese shoemaker.

Jay Jay Japan has been promoting the sales of women’s shoes, ballerinas and heels using the CHLOEFRANCIS mark.

Opposition by Chloe

On February 23, 2018, Chloe S.A.S., a French luxury fashion house founded in 1952 by Gaby Aghion, filed an opposition, stating that relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive opposed mark with Chloe or any business entity systematically or economically connected with opponent due to high popularity of opponent’s fashion brand “Chloe” and close resemblance between opposed mark and “Chloe”.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Chloe sought to retroactively cancel opposed mark based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entity’s well-known goods or services, to the benefit of brand owner and users’ benefits.

Board decision

The Board admitted “Chloe” has acquired a high degree of reputation among relevant consumers and traders in connection with fashion items.

Besides, the Board found that opposed mark apparently consists of “CHLOE” and “FRANCIS”. If so, relevant consumers shall be impressed with the term “CHLOE” and consider it a dominant part of opposed mark since they easily conceive a famous source indicator of the high-end fashion brand, Chloe.

Furthermore, the Board pointed out that Jay Jay Japan has used opposed mark with a space between the two words, “CHLOE” and “FRANCIS”.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that, relevant traders or consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of opposed mark with Chloe SAS or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent when used on shoes in class 25 and declared cancellation based on Article 4(1)(xv).

Porsche wins trademark protection for “911”

Posted on

Porsche, a German sports car maker, has recently won trademark protection for its widely known three-digit code “911” in Japan.
[Appeal case no. 2018-650044]

911 – a mark composed exclusively of numerals

Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche Aktiengesellschaft filed a trademark application for three-digit mark “911” in standard character to the Japan Patent Office (JPO) via the Madrid Protocol with a priority date of March 15, 2014, which is the international registration date for IR no. 1199656.

Evidently, the mark represents the famous Porsche 911, one of the greatest sportscar.  

It starts in 1963. 911 was Designed as a Rear Engined Luxury Sports Coupe from the get-go. Germans wanted to call it the 901. and that had been it’s factory code ever since it was in production. But Porsche was forced to rename the model the ‘911’ after French Automaker Peugeot claimed the name 901, having the {Number – Zero – Number}, was in violation of French copyright and trademark protection laws.

On April 5, 2018, the JPO examiner refused the 911 mark on the ground that it is descriptive for the designated goods ‘sports cars’ in class 12 based on Article 3(1)(v) of the Trademark Law.

The article prohibits any mark from registering if it consists solely of a very simple and common mark. Trademark Examination Guidelines (TEG) stipulates that a mark consisting of numerals is not eligible for registration under the article. Click here.

A mark composed exclusively of numerals is deemed uncapable of identifying the source of the goods since relevant public immediately perceives, without further thought, a description of one of the essential characteristics of the goods in question, such as their quantity or value.

The examiner had considered that since the sign 911 can be used to indicate a value, code, type, model or standard, it could be immediately perceived by the relevant public as descriptive of a characteristic of the goods in question and not of their provenance from a specific undertaking.

Numerals falling under the article are only capable for registration based on Article 3(2) if they have “acquired distinctiveness”, which means the term has taken on a meaning in the public view so that people see the term as a trademark identifying the goods rather than simply describing the goods.

In the appeal, Porsche argued the 911 mark in itself has already played a role of source indicator as a result of substantive use since 1964.

APPEAL BOARD Decision – Acquired Distinctiveness

JPO Appeal Board granted protection of the 911 mark, stating that the mark has acquired distinctiveness due to substantive and continuous use with goods in question based on following fact-findings.

  1. Appellant has used the 911 mark as a sports car brand of its high-end product since 1964 in Japan and been continuously distributing the sports car.
  2. Recent domestic sales show 1,420 cars in 2016, 1,543 cars in 2017.
  3. Press release, news articles, catalogs and advertisements on magazines and newspapers featuring Porsche count to approximately 300 per year from 2010 to 2014.
  4. From the produced evidences, it could be seen that the 911 mark has been used in a separable manner with Porsche.

Thus, the Board found the applied mark in itself has been widely known for a source indicator of the famous Porsche 911 among relevant consumers of goods in respect of which an application for registration has been filed. If so, the 911 mark is exceptionally eligible for registration in connection with sports cars of class 12 based on Article 3(2) of the Trademark Law.

Adidas scores win against adidog in trademark dispute

Posted on

The Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided in favor of Adidas AG to retroactively cancel trademark registration no. 5990777 for word mark “adidog” (Opposed mark) due to a likelihood of confusion with “adidas”.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900019, Gazette issued on August 30, 2019]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark “adidog”, a word mark in standard character, was filed on October 17, 2016 by an individual, designating clothing for pets in class 18 and published for registration on November 21, 2017 without confronting with office action from the JPO examiner.

TRADEMARK OPPOSITION – Article 4(1)(xv)

On January 16, 2018, before the lapse of a two-months opposition period, Adidas AG filed an opposition to opposed mark. In the opposition, Adidas AG contended opposed mark shall be cancelled based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits to register a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with a business of other entity.

Adidas AG argued opposed mark is likely to cause confusion with Adidas’ renowned trade name “adidas”, which enjoyed a high degree of reputation as a source indicator of Adidas sportswear and sports shoes both in Japan and abroad, because of visual resemblance between and opposed mark “adidog”, and close relatedness/proximity of goods in question.

Opposition Board decision

The Board found that:

  1. It is unquestionable that trade name “Adidas” has acquired a remarkable degree of reputation well before the filing date of opposed mark as a result of continuous use on sportswear and marketing activities in Japan since 1971.
  2. “Adidas”, coined after the name of opponent’s founder ‘Adi Dassler’, is an invented word with no dictionary and other known meaning. Besides, the Board could not find any words starting with ‘adid’ in language dictionaries of English, French, German and Italian as well as registered trademarks with the prefix ‘adid’ in Japan other than opponent mark.
  3. Opposed mark, consisting of six alphabets, starts with ‘adid’. In the meantime, stylized 5th letter ‘a’ of opponent mark looks like a device combining a short vertical bar with ‘o’. The final letter ‘s’ gives rise to a similar impression with ‘g’ since both letters have the same way of writing and configuration with a digit – ‘8’. Thus, opposed mark shall be deemed similar to “adidas” from appearance and sound.
  4. Clothing for pets is one of fashion items consumed by general public. Sportswear is also consumed by general public not only for exercise use but also fashion items. It becomes apparent that distributors of sports gears, apparels, bags, and shoes also deal with clothing for pets nowadays. If so, both goods shall be closely related.

Based on the above findings, the Board concluded that consumers who are accustomed to the circumstance, are likely to confuse clothing for pets using opposed mark with Adidas’ famous trade name “adidas” or misconceive a source from any entity systematically or economically connected with Adidas AG. Thus, opposed mark shall be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

Trademark Dispute Over Cigarette Sub-Brand “SIGNATURE”

Posted on

In a decision dated September 12, 2019, the Japan IP High Court affirmed the Japan Patent Office’s (JPO) determination to refuse registration for the STATE EXPRESS 555 “SIGNATURE” cigarette package design due to a conflict with senior Trademark Registration No. 4658792 for word mark “SIGNATURE”.
[Court case no. Heisei31(Gyo-ke)10020]

STATE EXPRESS 555 “SIGNATURE” cigarette package design

CTBAT International Company Limited, a joint investment of subsidiaries of China National Tobacco Corporation and British American Tobacco and incorporated in Hong Kong, filed a trademark application for device mark representing cigarette package design (see below) by designating cigarette, tobacco, electronic cigarette and others in class 34 on November 28, 2016 (TM application No. 2016-134074).

It the center, “No. 555 STATE EXPRESS” is written in three lines inside a circle. “SIGNATURE” is written independently on the upper side of the design.

Senior trademark “SIGNATURE”

The JPO examiner refused registration by citing a senior Trademark Registration No. 4658792 for word mark “SIGNATURE” in standard character overt the goods of cigarette in class 34 owned by PT Gudang Garam TBK, one of Indonesia’s leading cigarette manufacturers, best known for its kretek clove cigarettes, headquartered in Kediri, Indonesia, which was acquired by Philip Morris in 2005.

PT Gudang Garam TBK has used the registered mark as a cigarette sub-brand of Gudang Garam.

CTBAT filed an appeal against the JPO examiner’s refusal and argued dissimilarity between the marks, but in vain. [Appeal case no. 2018-002007]
Subsequently, CTBAT appealed to the IP High Court and demanded cancellation of the administrative decision to refuse registration for plaintiff’s mark.

Qualitative description

CTBAT argued the term ‘SIGNATURE’ lacks distinctiveness in relation to cigarette because several cigarette manufacturers, e.g. Dunhill, Camel, Davidoff, W.O.Larsen, have been using it as a qualitative term to indicate the cigarette has a specific feature of symbolic brand.

Besides, plaintiff’s mark contains distinctive terms, “No. 555 STATE EXPRESS”, which has acquired a certain degree of popularity of the cigarette brand through substantial use for more than 100 years. If so, it is unlikely that relevant consumers and traders would recognize the term “SIGNATURE” on the upper side as a source indicator in itself.

IP High Court Ruling

The court dismissed the allegation entirely, by stating that:

  1. From overall appearance of plaintiff’s mark, the term “SIGNATURE” shall not be perceived to combine with other figurative and literal elements.
  2. From the produced evidences, it is unclear if “No. 555 STATE EXPRESS” and “555” has acquired a certain degree of popularity because the cigarette brand has never been distributed in Japan so far.
  3. It is questionable that relevant Japanese consumers fully understand the term “SIGNATURE” and associated words, “Signature model”, “Signature Blends” have a qualitative or descriptive meaning in connection with cigarette.
  4. It has been often seen that a sub-brand is used on cigarette package separable from its main brand.
  5. The court finds the cited mark is used as a source indicator (sub-brand) on its cigarette package as well.
  6. Given the term “SIGNATURE” does not inseparably combine with other elements of plaintiff’s mark, it shall be permissible to cut out the portion and assess similarity of both marks based on the portion as long as it does meet with trade practice.

Based on the foregoing, the IP High Court sided with the JPO and upheld the refusal decision.

Is “VEGAS” an abbreviation for Las Vegas, or a source indicator?

Posted on1 Comment

In a trademark opposition disputing over abbreviation for ‘Las Vegas’, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided the term “VEGAS” shall be distinctive in connection with a service of providing amusement facilities (casino facilities, Pachinko parlors) of class 41.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900349, Gazette issue date: August 30, 2019]

VEGAS

Opposed mark is a word mark “VEGAS” in a plain gothic type.

The mark was filed in December 26, 2017 by a Japanese entertainment company, VEGASVEGAS Co., Ltd., headquartered in Tokyo, for various services in class 41 including providing casino (gambling) facilities, Pachinko parlors.

JPO, going through substantive examination, admitted registration (TM Registration no. 6080858) and published for opposition on October 9, 2018.

TRADEMARK OPPOSITION – Article 3(1)(iii)

On November 26, 2018, before the lapse of a two-months opposition period, DAIHACHI Co., Ltd. (d/b/a VEGAS GROUP), an amusement company, operating Pachinko & slot machine parlors in the name of VEGAS, filed an opposition, arguing that the word ‘VEGAS’ has been known among relevant consumers for an abbreviation for Las Vegas, the gamblers’ paradise, a trendy tourist destination, the entertainment capital of the world.

If so, it shall be forbidden to allow exclusive use of famous geographical indication by trademark right. Besides, consumers at the sight of opposed mark would establish a link between the geographical indication Las Vegas and “amusement facilities, casino (gambling) facilities and Pachinko parlors” and just conceive the facilities using opposed mark are connected with or equivalent to services available in Las Vegas Nevada (US).

Therefore, it is evident that opposed mark lacks distinctiveness in connection with the designated service of providing amusement facilities (casino facilities, Pachinko parlors) of class 41 and shall be revocable under Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law.

Article 3(1) of the Trademark Law is a provision to prohibit descriptive marks from registering.

Section (iii) of the article aims to remove any mark merely or directly suggesting quality of goods and services.

“Article 3(1)　Any trademark to be used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant may be registered, unless the trademark:

(iii)　consists solely of a mark indicating, in a common manner, in the case of goods, the place of origin, place of sale, quality, raw materials, efficacy, intended purpose, quantity, shape (including shape of packages), price, the method or time of production or use, or, in the case of services, the location of provision, quality, articles to be used in such provision, efficacy, intended purpose, quantity, modes, price or method or time of provision;”

OPPOSITION DECISION

JPO Opposition Board totally dismissed the opposition by stating that:

  1. From the produced evidences, it is unclear whether ‘VEGAS’ becomes ordinary indication for Las Vegas in Nevada, US.
  2. The Board could not find circumstances and business practices related to the service in dispute that ‘VEGAS’ has been used to indicate a specific quality of the service or an association with Las Vegas at all.
  3. A mere fact that ‘VEGAS’ reminds consumers of Las Vegas is insufficient to negate distinctiveness of opposed mark in connection with the service in dispute.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided opposed mark shall play a part of source indicator over the service in class 41 and irrevocable under Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law.

Adidas unsuccessful in an attempt to prevent trademark protection for two-stripes

Posted on

The Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) held in an opposition filed by Adidas AG that trademark registration no. 6016240 for two-stripes device (Opposed mark) shall remain as valid as ever and entirely dismissed Adidas’ claims based on its famous three stripes.[Opposition case no. 2018-900100, Gazette issued on August 30, 2019]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark (see below) was applied for registration on June 16, 2016 over shoes in class 25 by Marubeni Footwear, a Japanese business entity, and published for registration on February 27, 2018.

Opposition by Adidas

On April 24, 2018, Adidas AG filed an opposition and argued opposed mark is revocable under Article 4(1)(vii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law in relation to its famous three stripes (see below).

Article 4(1)(vii)

Article 4(1)(vii) prohibits any mark likely to offend public order and morals from registering.

Trademark Examination Guidelines set forth criteria for the article and examples.
Among others, “Trademarks whose registration is contrary to the order predetermined under the Trademark Act and is utterly unacceptable for lack of social reasonableness in the background to the filing of an application for trademark registration.”

Based on a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity to Adidas three stripes, opponent asserted, applicant must have been aware of Adidas three stripes and filed opposed mark with a malicious intention to take advantage of the reputation and credit of opponent’s famous trademark and impair the goodwill embodied on its iconic three stripes.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits to register a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with a business of other entity.

Adidas argued that, from appearance, opposed mark evidently gives rise to a same impression with Adidas three stripes since each stripe of the mark is depicted in the same direction, width and shape, besides a space between stripe also has the same width with the stripe.

Given opponent mark has been substantially used in various colors, length, and configurations, average consumers with an ordinary care of shoes who have been quite familiar with Adidas are likely to associate opposed mark with Adidas’ three-stripes. Inter alia, when each stripe of opposed mark is used in different color on side upper sole and a space between the stripes (upper sole fabric) has other color, and thus opposed mark looks like depicting three stripes on shoes, it is highly anticipated that relevant consumers would confuse its source with opponent.

Opposition decision

The Opposition Board admitted a high degree of reputation and popularity to Adidas three stripes in relation to sport shoes, sportswear, sports gear at the time of initial filing and registration of opposed mark.

In the meantime, the Board found a low degree of originality of three stripes and similarity between the marks, from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view since opposed mark can be clearly perceived as ‘two-stripes’. Even if Adidas three stripes has acquired remarkable reputation, average consumers of sports shoes would not mistake two stripes for three stripes in purchasing shoes with opposed mark.
If so, the Board believes it is unlikely that relevant consumers confuse or associate opposed mark with Adidas.

The Board also negated opponent’s allegation of a possible ‘three-stripes’ appearance under specific color combination by stating that opposed mark is nothing but a two-stripes design mark. The space in between two stripes does not constitute opposed mark. If so, the allegation shall be irrelevant to the case.

Besides, from the produced evidences, the Board found it was not foreseen a circumstance to offend public order and morals from registering opposed mark and give harmful effect to the international faith.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded opposed mark shall not be revocable under Article 4(1)(vii) as well as (xv) and granted registration a status quo.

Fashion Designer in trademark fight over his name

Posted on

On August 7, 2019, the Japan IP High Court ruled to dismiss an appeal by Ken Kikuchi, a Japanese jewelry designer, who contested a decision by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) to deny trademark registration for a composite mark consisting of a word “KEN KIKUCHI” with an eagle device under Article 4(1)(viii) of the Trademark Law.
[Judicial case no. Heisei31(Gyo-ke)10037]

KEN KIKUCHI

Disputed mark (see below) was filed by Ken Kikuchi on May 23 ,2017 covering various goods in class 14, 18 and 25 including jewelry and accessories. [TM application no. 2017-69467]

Since 2000, Ken Kikuchi allegedly has been designing and manufacturing affordable elaborate silver jewelry under the brand of his name “KEN KIKUCHI”. As a result of business expansion (14 brick-and-mortar stores in Japan, 4 stores in foreign counties) and advertisements from television, magazines, the designer’s name has acquired better reputation in the industry.

Refusal decision by JPO

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) refused the mark based on Article 4(1)(viii) of the Trademark Law, on the ground that the literal element of disputed mark can be perceived to identify a private individual named “Ken Kikuchi”. According to white pages, evidently there exist several Japanese people with the same name. If so, disputed mark shall not be allowed for registration since it contains a name of living person per se.

Article 4(1)(viii)

Article 4(1)(viii) of the Trademark Law prohibits registration of trademarks which contain the representation or name of any person, famous pseudonym, professional name or pen name of another person, or famous abbreviation thereof. Notwithstanding the provision, the article is not applicable where the applicant of disputed mark produces the written consent of the person.

The Supreme Court of Japan has ruled the article shall be interpreted to protect personal rights of a living individual. In line with the Supreme Court ruling, Trademark Examination Manuals (TEM) set forth that the article is applicable not only to natural persons (including foreigners) and corporations but also associations without capacity.

The Appeal Board of JPO also sided with the examiner’s refusal on the same ground. [Appeal case no. 2018-7529]

To contest the administrative decision, the designer filed an appeal to the IP High Court on March 25, 2019

IP High Court Ruling

The court dismissed the allegation entirely, by stating that:

  1. “KEN” and “KIKUCHI” are both commonly used names to Japanese people.
  2. Literal elements of disputed mark shall be perceived as a name of person even if the name is written in alphabet, given it has become popular to write a full name on the passport, credit card and others in alphabet.
  3. Article 4(1)(viii) shall be construed to comprehend a name of person written in alphabet.
  4. It is not relevant to consider reputation of disputed mark in applying the article since it aims to protect personal rights of a living individual.
  5. Irrespective of the fact that a person named “Ken Kikuchi” surely exists, applicant failed to prove consent from the person.

Based on the foregoing, the IP High Court sided with the JPO and upheld the refusal decision.

PUMA’s Fight Against Logo Parody

Posted on

On August 1, 2019, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to invalidate trademark registration no. 5861923 for composite mark consisting of a word “KUMA”, which means ‘bear’ in Japanese, and the bear device by finding a likelihood of confusion with a world-renowned sports brand, PUMA and detrimental effect to public policy or morality.
[Invalidation case no. 2019-890001]

KUMA device mark

Disputed mark (see below) was filed on January 7, 2016 by a Japanese business entity in Hokkaido, Japan’s most northerly main island, an otherworldly volcanic land with eastern Asia’s highest concentration of brown bears, over various goods in class 25 including sportswear and shoes.

Precedently, applicant applied for registration of following trademarks, consist of four alphabets in bold font and an animal silhouette facing left depicted in the upper right of the alphabets, on goods in classes 9, 14, 16, 24, 25 and 28, but in vain.

“UUMA” means ‘horse’, “BUTA” means ‘pig’, “KUMA” means ‘bear’ in Japanese. It is obvious that both literal element and figurative element of respective mark give rise to a same meaning, which is the same for PUMA.

It is likely the applicant intended to use these marks on souvenirs from Hokkaido since we get accustomed to see scenes at a famous tourist spot that T-shirts and other small items displayed at gift shops parody famous brands by featuring local specialty to attract tourists for fun.

PUMA’s Opposition / Invalidation Trial

On September 26, 2016, PUMA SE filed an opposition against the KUMA mark based on Article 4(1)(vii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law. PUMA argued relevant consumers or traders are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of disputed mark with PUMA when used on designated goods in class 25 because of a high reputation and close resemblance between PUMA logo and the KUMA mark.

The Opposition Board admitted a high degree of popularity and reputation of PUMA logo, however, the Board dismissed the opposition entirely due to unlikelihood of confusion as a result of low degree of similarity between the marks (Opposition case no. 2016-900308).

Subsequently, PUMA SE entrusted the case to MARKS IP LAW FIRM. On New Year’s Eve of 2018, MARKS IP LAW FIRM on behalf of PUMA SE requested for an invalidation trial and sought to annul the KUMA mark on the same grounds.

Invalidation Decision

The Invalidation Board reversed the opposition decision and decided in favor of PUMA by finding that:

  1. PUMA logo has been continuously famous as a source indicator of PUMA in connection with sports shoes, sportswear and others among relevant consumers and traders in Japan.
  2. Configuration of PUMA logo looks unique, creative, and impressive in itself.
  3. Regardless of visual difference in detail between the marks, overall impression of both marks is quite similar.
  4. Given close association between designated goods in class 25 and PUMA business, relevant consumers of the goods with an ordinary care are likely to confuse its source with PUMA
  5. Besides, it is presumed the current registrant of disputed mark was knowingly assigned a similar KUMA mark that applicant had a fraudulent intent to free-ride and dilute PUMA’s goodwill.
  6. If so, current registrant must have filed disputed mark with a fraudulent intention to dilute or do harm to PUMA’s goodwill given a close resemblance of between disputed mark and a rejected KUMA mark (see above right).

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to invalidate disputed marks based on Article 4(1)(xv) as well as 4(1)(vii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

SISLEY lose trademark opposition over SOIR DE LUNE

Posted on

In a recent trademark opposition, the Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) held a junior trademark registration no. 6041076 for word mark “LunaSoir” is dissimilar to a senior IR registration no. 845029 for word mark “SOIR DE LUNE”, one of fragrance brands by SISLEY, a French producer of cosmetics and fragrances, even when used on fragrance in class 3
[Opposition case no. 2018-900194, Gazette issue date: July 26, 2019]

LunaSoir

Opposed mark (see below) was applied for registration on July 31, 2017 by designating soaps, perfumery, cosmetics and others in class, and published for registration on June 5, 2018 without any office action from the JPO examiner.

SISLEY – SOIR DE LUNE

Opponent, SISLEY, a French producer of cosmetics and fragrances, claimed that the opposed mark “LunaSoir” shall be cancelled under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing a senior trademark registration for word mark “SOIR DE LUNE”covering soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices in class 3.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit from registering a junior mark which is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

SISLEY argued both marks give rise to a same meaning of “moon night” given “Luna” and “LUNE mean “moon” in Latin and French respectively, “SOIR” means “night” in French, and “DE” corresponds to “of” in English. If so, both marks are likely to cause confusion from a conceptual point of view.

Board Decision

In the decision, the Board decided that “LunaSoir” and “SOIR DE LUNA” are both dissimilar in appearance, pronunciation as well as concept.

The Board assessed, by taking into consideration a relatively low level of knowledge to Latin and French language among relevant consumers with an ordinary care, opposed mark consisting of “Luna” and “Soir” would not give rise to any specific meaning at all.
Based on the fact finding, the Board concluded that opposed mark “LunaSoir” is obviously dissimilar to SISLEY’s fragrance brand “SOIR DE LUNE” from concept, needless to say appearance and pronunciation.

It is noteworthy to a brand owner from non-English speaking nations that conceptual similarity would not play a defensive role to prevent free-riding and enjoy a broader scope of protection against use by others where the brand contains a non-English term unfamiliar to Japanese.