カテゴリー: Article 4(1)(xi)

Jimmy Choo Unsuccessful in Trademark Opposition against “CHUU”

Posted on

On April 10, 2023, the JPO dismissed a trademark opposition against TM Reg no. 6523561 for the wordmark “chuu” contested by J. Choo Limited due to the dissimilarity of the mark and unlikelihood of confusion with “Jimmy Choo”.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900189]

Opposed mark “chuu”

PPB Studios Corporation Limited, a Korean fashion and beauty e-commerce company, sought registration of the wordmark “chuu” (see below) for use on apparel in class 25 and retail services for contact lenses, clothing, footwear, and bags in class 35 with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on March 8, 2021.

The JPO examiner did not raise an objection by citing earlier trademark registration for the stylized mark “CHOO” owned by J. Choo Limited and granted protection on February 28, 2022.

Opposition by Jimmy Choo

The luxury-footwear brand Jimmy Chou, a luxury footwear brand, filed the opposition on May 6, 2022, and contend that the opposed mark “chuu” shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Jimmy Choo argued the opposed mark is similar to earlier registration for his company-owned mark “CHOO” (see below) and is likely to cause confusion with Jimmy Choo because of a close resemblance between the opposed mark and his famous mark, and relatedness of the goods in question with Jimmy Choo’s business.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board questioned the famousness of the cited mark “CHOO” as a source indicator of the luxury footwear brand “Jimmy Choo” from the produced evidence and totality of the circumstances.

Next, the Board assessed the similarity of marks and found that there are distinctions between the opposed mark and the cited marks in terms of lower-case and upper-case letters, the thickness of the letters, the presence or absence of design, and the difference between the word “uu” and the word “OO” in the latter part of the respective mark. The visual impression that these differences give to the overall appearance of the two marks, both of which consist of four letters, is significantly different, and thus both marks are clearly distinguishable in appearance.

The opposed mark gives rise to the sound of “Chu”, while the cited is pronounced “Chu” or “Cho”. If so, both marks share the same pronunciation and are deemed aurally similar.

Both marks are not comparable conceptually because the respective mark does not give rise to any specific meaning at all.

Based on the foregoing, the Board held “Even if the opposed mark and the cited mark are not comparable in conception and share some similarities in sound, since they are significantly different in impression and clearly distinguishable in appearance, the Board has a reason to believe that the similarity in sound would not outweigh the visual difference. Taking all of the above into consideration as a whole, both marks are dissimilar and not likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the goods or services.

Given the cited mark has not acquired a certain degree of recognition as a source indicator of “Jimmy Choo” among relevant consumers in Japan, there is no reason to find a likelihood of confusion when the opposed mark is used on the goods in question.

Based on the above findings, the JPO Opposition Boards did not side with Jimmy Choo and decided the validity of the opposed mark as the status quo.

FURLA vs FURNA

Posted on

Italian heritage label Furla lost a trademark opposition in Japan against TM Reg no. 6501195 for the wordmark “FURNA” in class 25 as a result of the JPO’s decision finding no likelihood of confusion with “FURLA”.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900128, decided on April 6, 2023]

FURNA

The opposed mark, consisting of the wordmark “FURNA” in standard character, was filed for use on clothing, dresses, footwear, garters, waistbands, belts [clothing] and other goods in class 25 with the JPO by URBAN TEX Co., Ltd., a Japanese company on November 1, 2021.

The company opens an online shop for wedding dresses under the trade name “FURNA” on Rakuten online shopping platform.

In accordance with a request for accelerated examination from the company based on the actual use of the mark on any one of the designated goods, the JPO carried out a substantive examination and granted protection on January 14, 2022. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on January 27, 2022.

Opposition by FURLA

Italian luxury retailer FURLA S.P.A. filed an opposition on May 28, 2022, and claimed the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

FURLA argued a mere difference of “N” and “L” in the fourth letter of the respective word would be trivial and thus inadequate to find a low degree of similarity in appearance and sound. Given a close association between the goods in question and the opponent goods covered by earlier registrations for the FURLA marks that have acquired a high level of recognition among relevant consumers in Japan, the consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods bearing the opposed mark with Furla or mistakenly consider it from an entity systematically or economically connected with FURLA S.P.A.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted a high level of recognition of the mark “FURLA” in connection with bags among relevant consumers as a source indicator of the opponent.

In the meantime, the Board questioned if both marks are deemed similar in visual, aural, and conceptual points of view by stating:

Comparing the opposed mark and the opponent mark, “FURNA” and “FURLA” differ in appearance in the fourth letter of “N” and “L” but the difference in these letters in the short five-character composition has a substantial effect on the overall composition, and they are sufficiently distinguishable in appearance.

Pronunciation arising from “FURNA” and “FURLA” are different even when they are called in succession, and there is no risk of mishearing each other.

The opposed mark is conceptually distinguishable because it does not give rise to any specific meaning, whereas the opponent mark has been known as “Furla’s brand”.

Even if the “FURLA” mark is widely recognized among Japanese consumers as an indication of the opponent’s business, given the low degree of similarity between “FURNA” and “FURLA”, the Board has no reason to believe that the consumers having a glimpse of the opposed mark used on the goods in question would associate or recall the opponent mark.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the opposition entirely and decided that the opposed mark “FURNA” shall remain valid as the status quo.

L’Oréal loses trademark fight against “NOREAL”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by L’Oréal against TM Reg no. 6520304 for the wordmark “NOREAL” in class 3 due to dissimilarity to the L’OREAL mark and unlikelihood of causing confusion with L’Oréal.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900195, decided on April 5, 2023]

NOREAL

The opposed mark, consisting of the wordmark “NOREAL” in standard character, for use on cosmetics, soaps, shampoos, perfumes, fragrances, and other goods in class 3 was filed by a Japanese individual with the JPO on May 20, 2021.

The JPO examiner, without raising any objection, granted protection of the opposed mark on January 7, 2022. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on March 9, 2022.

Opposition by L’Oréal

Global cosmetic giant L’Oréal filed an opposition on May 10, 2022, and claimed the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

In the opposition brief, L’Oréal argued, given a close resemblance in appearance and sound between the world-famous mark “L’OREAL” and the opposed mark “NOREAL”, there is a high degree of similarity between the marks and thus relevant consumers of goods in question are likely to confuse a source of cosmetics bearing the opposed mark with L’Oréal or any entity economically or systematically connected with the opponent.

JPO decision

Astonishingly, the JPO Opposition Board found it unobvious from the produced evidence that the L’OREAL mark has been highly recognized as a source indicator of the opponent among a wide range of consumers.

On the assessment of the similarity of marks, the Opposition Board considered a difference between “N” and “L'” at the beginning of respective marks would play a significant role in distinguishing the appearance and sound of wordmark and have a substantial influence on the visual and aural impression of two marks, which consist of relatively few letters, as a whole. Therefore, the Board has a reason to believe that both marks are sufficiently distinguishable in appearance and sound. Since both marks do not give rise to any specific meaning, it is unable to assess the conceptual similarity of the two marks. Based on the above findings, the Board found both marks are dissimilar from visual, aural, and conceptual points of view.

Due to insufficient brand recognition of the L’OREAL mark and the low degree of similarity between the two marks, “NOREAL” and “L’OREAL”, the Board has a reason to believe relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse a source of cosmetics bearing the NOREAL mark with L’Oréal regardless of overlapping goods and consumers.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO did not side with L’Oréal and decided the validity of the opposed mark as the status quo.

Trademark case: Wilson vs Werwilson

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Wilson Sporting Goods Company against TM Reg no. 6520718 for the mark “Werwilson” with a device in class 25 by finding less likelihood of confusion with “Wilson”, the iconic American sporting goods brand when used on goods in class 25.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900124, decided on March 29, 2023]

Opposed mark

The opposed mark, consisting of two literal elements “Wer”, “wilson” and encircled “w” device placed in between them (see below), was sought registration by a Chinese company for use on apparel, footwear, and sports shoes in class 25 with the JPO on July 9, 2021.

The JPO granted protection of the opposed mark and registered on March 1, 2022, and published it for a post-grant opposition on March 9, 2022.

Opposition by Wilson

On March 28, 2022, Wilson Sporting Goods Company, originally known as the Ashland Manufacturing Company, created in 1913 in Chicago (US), a subsidiary of Amer Sports Corporation, opposed registration and claimed the opposed mark is confusingly similar to earlier registrations for their iconic mark “Wilson” (see below) and thus shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Wilson argued that visually the opposed mark can be conceived of as “We’re Wilson”. By virtue of a high level of brand recognition of “Wilson”, the opposed mark would give rise to a pronunciation and meaning of “Wilson” from its prominent portion. Given a close association of goods and consumers between the opposed mark and Wilson, relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods in question bearing the opposed mark with Wilson or another entity economically or systematically connected with the opponent.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted the famousness of the “Wilson” mark as a source indicator of the opponent in connection with tennis and sporting goods among relevant consumers in Japan.

However, the Board found that the opposed mark would not be conceived of as “We’re Wilson” from its configuration. Besides, the opposed mark does not give rise to the pronunciation and meaning of “Wilson” as a whole or in part.

If so, both marks are dissimilar from visual, phonetical, and conceptual points of view.

In view of the low degree of similarity of the marks, the Board has a reason to believe that relevant consumers with ordinary care are unlikely to confuse the source of goods in question using the opposed mark with Wilson.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations and decided that the opposed mark shall remain valid as the status quo.

Harvey Ball wins trademark opposition over the double-eyed smiley face

Posted on

In a recent administrative decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Harvey Ball Smile Limited in opposition against TM Reg no. 6524017 due to a conflict with the Double-Eyed Smiley Face mark.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900202 decided on March 3, 2023]

Opposed mark

Capital Co., Ltd. filed a device mark (see below) for use on various goods including personal ornament, bags, pouches, and clothing in classes 14, 16, 18, and 25 with the JPO on September 30, 2021.

Apparently, the applicant promotes T-shirts, shoes, and bags bearing the opposed mark via the internet.

A screen capture of https://www.kapital-webshop.jp/category/MENSALL/EK1426.html

The JPO granted protection of the mark on March 7, 2022, and published it for opposition on March 15, 2022.

Opposition by Harvey Ball Smile Limited

Harvey Ball Limited filed an opposition against May 16, 2022, and claimed cancellation of the opposed mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier TM Reg nos. 6479744, 6504979, 6504980, 6504981, 6504982, and 6504983 for the Double-eyed Smiley Face mark (see below).

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registration of a junior mark that is identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

The applicant argued against the opposition and alleged relevant consumers can distinguish two marks because of distinctive visual impressions arising from a different shape of the mouth.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found the opposed mark is similar to the Double-eyed Smiley Face mark by stating that:

“Comparing the opposed mark and the citations, from appearance, both marks represent a face in yellow with two sets of eyes. Although there are differences in details (such as the size of the dots, the thickness of the arc lines, the degree of opening, and the presence or absence of single lines at both ends of the arc lines) and facial expressions, these differences have less impact on the overall impression. If so, both marks have similar visual impressions as a whole.

Besides, since respective mark does not give rise to any specific sound and meaning, they are not comparable from phonetical and conceptual points of view.

Therefore, the Board has a reason to believe that both marks are likely to cause confusion when used on the personal ornament, bags, and pouches, clothing in classes 14, 18, and 25 that are deemed similar to the goods designated under the citations.”

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to partially cancel the opposed mark in relation to personal ornament, bags, and pouches, clothing in classes 14, 18, and 25 in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi).

Johnson’s baby vs. JOHANSON bebis

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Johnson & Johnson in trademark opposition who sought cancellation of TM Reg no. 6559102 for the “JOHANSON bebis” mark due to similarity to or likelihood of confusion with “Johnson’s baby”.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900314, decided on February 22, 2023]

JOHANSON bebis

JOHANSON LIFE Co., Ltd., a Korean company, filed the “JOHANSON bebis” mark (see below) for use on babies’ bottles and nasal aspirators in class 10 with the JPO on June 28, 2021.

Apparently, the company promotes babies’ bottles bearing the applied mark.

The mark was registered by the JPO on May 20, 2022, and published for opposition on May 30, 2022.

Johnson’s baby

Johnson & Johnson, one of the oldest pharmaceutical companies in the US, has owned TM Reg no. 4032368 for the stylized word mark “Johnson’s baby” (see below) on baby bottles, nursing bottles, teats, feeding cups, and cotton swabs in class 10 since 1997.

Johnson & Johnson filed an opposition against the “JOHANSON bebis” mark on August 1, 2022, and argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law due to visual and phonetical similarity and the likelihood of confusion between “JOHANSON bebis” and “Johnson’s baby” that has been famous for skin care products for baby when used on designated goods in class 10.

JPO Decision

The Opposition Board pointed out the produced evidence shows substantial use of the “Johnson’s” mark, however, none of them demonstrate actual use of the cited mark. If so, the Board has no reason to believe the cited mark has been well-recognized among relevant consumers in Japan.

As for the similarity of the mark, the Board found there is no risk of confusion between the opposed mark and the cited mark in appearance by means of the presence or absence of the device, and difference in the arrangement, composition, and number of alphabets.

Comparing the sound of “Johanson bebis” with “Johnson’s baby”, they are clearly distinguishable due to their different sound structures, and there is no risk of confusion in sound.  Besides, while the opposed mark does not have any specific concept, the cited mark gives rise to the meaning of “Johnson’s baby,” so there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in the concept. If so, the opposed mark shall be dissimilar to the cited mark from visual, phonetical, and conceptual points of view.

Assuming that the cited mark has not been widely recognized as a source indicator of Johnson & Johnson and has a low degree of similarity to the opposed mark, it is unlikely that relevant consumers would confuse a source of goods in question bearing the opposed mark with Johnson & Johnson.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to dismiss the entire allegations and found the opposed mark shall not be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) in relation to the cited mark.

Letter of Protest protects PUMA from Free-rider

Posted on

The JPO examiner raised her objection on the ground that TM App no. 2022-76159 for the stylized mark “SHIBA” was confusingly similar to the world-famous mark “PUMA” and filed with a malicious intent to harm PUMA as well as public interest.

Opposition vs Letter of Protest

Whenever a brand owner discovers a trademark application by a third party that may cause confusion or detrimental effect on your business, the owner is eager to block its registration by any means.

Opposition is one of the actions universally taken in such cases, however, it should be noted the success rate of opposition has been remarkably low (11% on average in the past six years) in Japan. Besides, the Japan Trademark Law does provide only “post-grant opposition” and the JPO has full discretion in deciding whether to cancel the opposed mark. Assumably, these factors affect the rate getting lower.

In this respect, a “letter of protest” is probably a better option instead.

Any person can use the letter of protest to give the JPO evidence about the registrability of a trademark in a pending application. There is no public data to show how effective the letter works to block the protested trademark, however, in my experience, as a Japanese trademark practitioner for twenty years, more than half of the letters resulted in a rejection of the protested trademark.

Protest to “SHIBA” mark

MARKS IP LAW FIRM, acting on behalf of PUMA SE, sent a letter of protest against TM App no. 2022-76159 for the stylized mark “SHIBA” (see below) in class 25 on November 25, 2022.

In the letter, we argued the protested mark is likely to cause confusion with PUMA SE because of its resemblance to the world-famous sports brand “PUMA”.

On February 17, 2023, the JPO examiner issued an office action refusing registration of the SHIBA mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv), (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by stating that:

The protested mark gives rise to a pronunciation of “Shiba” and the concept of “Shina Inu; a breed of small thick-coated agile dogs developed in Japan”.

Even though there is a difference in meaning and sound, by virtue of the remarkable degree of reputation and popularity of the PUMA mark and the impressive resemblance of both marks in appearance, the examiner has a reason to believe relevant consumers would confuse a source of the designated goods of class 25, namely clothing, belts, footwear, sportswear, sports shoes, and headgear, bearing the SHIBA mark with PUMA.

Besides, there is reasonable doubt that the applicant must have been aware of PUMA and applied for the protested mark with malicious intent to harm not only PUMA but also the public interest.

Unless the applicant is successful in persuading the examiner of the dissimilarity of the mark, the unlikelihood of confusion with PUMA, and the non-existence of malicious intent, it will be rejected as a matter of course.

It is my advice to take advantage of the letter of protest, rather than opposition if you want to protect your brand against free-rider in Japan.

Failed trademark opposition by Volkswagen: POLO vs. QOLO

Posted on

On December 28, 2022, the JPO Opposition Board dismissed the opposition claimed by German car giant Volkswagen AG against TM Reg no. 6512258 for the wordmark “Qolo” by finding dissimilarity to, and the unlikelihood of confusion with VW’s famous car model name “Polo” even when used in relation to automobiles.

[Opposition Case no. 2022-900157]

Opposed mark

Qolo Inc., a Japanese start-up company, filed a trademark application for the wordmark “Qolo” for various goods and services in classes 9, 10, 12, 20, 37, 42, and 44 including automobiles and repair, maintenance, and rental of cars on September 7, 2021.

The JPO granted protection of the opposed mark on February 10, 2022, and published it for registration on February 21, 2022.

Opposition by VW

Volkswagen AG filed an opposition against the opposed mark on April 19, 2022, before the lapse of a two-month statutory period counting from the publication date and claimed the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing VW’s earlier TM Reg no. 600030-2 for wordmark “POLO” on automobiles in class 12.

VW argued the opposed mark “Qolo” is deemed similar to “POLO” from visual and phonetical points of view. The opposed mark designates “electric vehicles; automobiles” in class 12, “repair and maintenance of automobiles; vehicle battery charging” in class 37, and “rental of automobiles, vehicles” in class 39 that are deemed identical or similar to automobiles.

In view of the remarkable reputation of VW POLO cars and the close resemblance between “Qolo” and “POLO”, it is highly likely that relevant consumers confuse a source of goods and services of the opposed mark when used on automobiles and its related services.

JPO decision

The Board admitted the famousness of the “POLO” mark as a source indicator of VW cars based on the facts that the Volkswagen Polo has been continuously imported to Japan since 1996 and ranked in the top 7 of imported automobiles for the past two decades.

However, the Board found “POLO” and “Qolo” are dissimilar in appearance and sound.

The difference in the first letter consisting of four letters in total would be anything but visually negligible. Likewise, the different pronunciation in the 1st sound consisting of two sounds in total gives rise to a distinctive impression.

By taking into consideration a lower degree of similarity between the marks and lack of originality for the term “POLO”, which means a game played on horseback between two teams, each of four players, the Board negated a likelihood of confusion between “POLO” and “Qolo” even when the opposed mark is used on goods and services in question.

Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed the opposition entirely and decided that the opposed mark “Qolo” shall remain valid as the status quo.

HYATT lost a trademark dispute in Japan: GRAND CLUB vs GRAN CLUB

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with HYATT and dismissed an invalidation petition against TM Reg no. 6186629 for the wordmark “GRAN CLUB” by finding dissimilarity to HYATT’s earlier mark “GRAND CLUB”.

[Invalidation case no. 2022-890018, Decision date: December 14, 2022]

GRAN CLUB

The disputed mark, consisting of the word mark “GRAN CLUB” in standard character was filed by Memolead Wellness Co., Ltd., a Japanese company for use in restaurants, hotels and temporary accommodations, retirement homes, beauty salons, and other services in class 43 and 44 on September 13, 2018, with the JPO. The JPO examiner granted protection on September 10, 2019.

Apparently, the applicant uses the mark on their facility to provide a sports club, fitness gym, spa, beauty salon, sauna, café, and social club in Takasaki City, Gunma Prefecture (Japan).

GRAND CLUB

Hyatt International Corporation has effectively owned earlier TM Reg no. 4604602 for the wordmark “GRAND CLUB” in standard character on hotels, restaurants, beauty salons, and other services in Japan.

Hyatt filed an invalidation petition against “GRAN CLUB” with the JPO on March 18, 2022, and argued the disputed mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law due to a close resemblance between “GRAND CLUB” and “GRAND CLUB” to be used on identical or similar services.

JPO Decision

The JPO Invalidation Board found the disputed mark “GRAN CLUB” does not give rise to any specific meaning as well as the cited mark “GRAND CLUB”.

From the appearance, the Board found both marks are distinguishable by virtue of the presence or absence of the letter “D” in the middle of the marks.

Besides, the Board had a view that it is unlikely relevant consumers audibly confuse “ɡræn-klʌb” with “ɡrænd-klʌb” in view of short phonetic compositions of six or seven sounds.

Hyatt argued “GRAND CLUB” can be called “ɡræn-klʌb” among Japanese consumers based on a lot of hotels and facilities with a mark containing the term “GRAN” that is ordinary called “ɡræn”. However, the Board held the examples are neither direct nor relevant to find “GRAND CLUB” is pronounced as  “ɡræn-klʌb” by relevant consumers.

Given both marks are incomparable to the concept, the Board has a reason to believe both marks give rise to a different impression in the mind of consumers from visual, phonetical, and conceptual points of view.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded “GRAN CLUB” and “GRAND CLUB” are dissimilar and declared the validity of the disputed mark.

Trademark dispute: “Swan Angel” vs “ANGEL SWAN”

Posted on

In a recent decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) declared invalidation of TM Reg no. 5947687 for the word mark “Swan Angel” in class 41 due to a similarity to “ANGEL SWAN”.

[Invalidation case no. 2022-890031, Decision date: December 1, 2022]

Swan Angel

Disputed mark, consisting of the wordmark “Swan Angel” in standard character, was filed for use on various services including ballet school in class 41 with the JPO by a Japanese individual on October 5, 2016, and registered on May 19, 2017 (TM Reg no. 5947687).

Invalidation petition

On May 10, 2022, just before the lapse of a five-year statute of limitations, an owner of earlier TM Reg no. 5509646 for wordmark “ANGEL SWAN” in standard character filed a petition for invalidation against the disputed mark.

The owner argued disputed mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by stating “Swan Angel” is confusingly similar to “ANGEL SWAN” and ballet school and other services pertinent to ballet is deemed similar to the service in class 41 designated under the earlier mark since it also relates to ballet.

JPO decision

In an assessment of the similarity of marks, the JPO Invalidation Board stated:

Both the disputed mark and the cited mark consist of the two English words, “Swan” and “Angel”, commonly known among general consumers in Japan and it is reasonable to assume that relevant traders and consumers at the sight of both marks will see the words being placed in reverse order.

Even if there is a difference in the order of two words between the marks, the Board has no reason to believe the difference gives rise to any distinct meaning as a whole.

If so, relevant traders and consumers are likely to recognize the respective marks as a combination of “swan” and “angel” in sound and concept irrespective of the reversed order.

In this respect, both marks look similar in appearance because of the same words, font, and alphabet.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found the disputed mark “Swan Angel” is confusingly similar to the cited mark “ANGEL SWAN” from visual, phonetical, and conceptual points of view.

Taking account of another factor that respective services pertinent to ballet are deemed identical or similar as well, the Board concluded the disputed mark shall be retroactively invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi).