Hummel scores win in a trademark dispute over Chevron

Hummel gained a victory in a trademark opposition against Japanese TM registration no. 6190746 for sixfold chevron right device mark due to a conflict with Hummel Chevron.
[Opposition case no. 2020-90007, Gazette issued date: May 28, 2021]

TM Reg no. 6190746

Opposed mark, consisting of a sixfold Chevron right device, was filed by a Japanese company for use on apparel and shoes in class 25 on November 14, 2018.

The JPO examiner did not raise her objection to the opposed mark and granted protection on September 27, 2019.

Hummel Chevron

On January 14, 2020, Hummel Holding A/S, the leading sportswear company from Denmark, filed an opposition and argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 8(1) of the Trademark Law because of similarity to senior trademarks that consist of multiple Chevron right, left or down devices (see below) in class 25 owned by Hummel.

Article 8(1) is a provision to prohibit registration of any junior mark that is identical with, or similar to earlier applied marks based on the “first-to-file” principle.

Apparently, Hummel has been eager to claim broader protection of the Hummel Chevron.

JPO decision

Among the citations, the JPO Opposition Board found the opposed mark is confusingly similar to the sixfold Chevron down mark from a visual point of view regardless of dissimilar in direction of Chevron based on the finding that both marks would not give rise to any specific meaning and different pronunciation. Besides, the goods in question are deemed identical or similar respectively.

Since the opponent mark was applied for one month before the opposed mark on October 17, 2018, Hummel is entitled to claim a prior application right under the article.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO side with Hummel and decided to cancel the opposed mark entirely in contravention of Article 8(1).

The Opposition Board did not mention whether the opposed mark is deemed similar to the Hummel Chevron other than the sixfold down.

V&W is unlikely to cause confusion with VW emblem

In a recent trademark opposition involving the circular Volkswagen logo, the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided that famous VW emblem is entirely dissimilar to, or unlikely to cause confusion with, the word mark “V&W” in standard character when used on retail services for automobiles [Opposition Case no. 2017-900009].

Trademark opposition

German car giant Volkswagen AG filed an opposition against TM registration no. 5888513 for word mark “V&W” written in standard character (Opposed mark) on the grounds that Opposed mark violates Article 4(1)(xi), 4(1)(xv) and 8(1) of the Trademark Law based on senior trademark registrations for the VW emblems and a word mark “VW”.
The opposed mark designates retail services or wholesale services for automobiles and various other goods in class 35.

Volkswagen argued Opposed mark gives rise to a pronunciation of “vi: dʌb·l·juː” by omitting “&” since the prevalent symbol representing a word of “AND” is just to connect “V” and “W”, and relevant traders and consumers are prone to omit the symbol in pronouncing the entire mark in light of transactional customs at present. If so, Opposed mark is deemed similar to the VW emblem as well as “VW” in visual, phonetical and conceptual point of view.

Besides, the VW emblem has acquired substantial popularity and reputation as a source indicator of famous automobile maker, Volkswagen. Thus, it is highly likely that relevant traders and consumers confuse the source of retail service for automobiles and its parts using Opposed mark “V&W” with opponent or a business entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent.


Board decision

The Board admitted the VW emblem has become famous for a source indicator of opponent by taking into consideration of the facts that opponent’s cars with the VW emblem have been continuously imported to Japan since 1978 at the latest and ranked in the top 3 of new imported automobile registrations for the past three years.

In the meantime, the Board denied high awareness of the word mark “VW” as a source indicator of opponent. A mere definition of VW to indicate the opponent in a dictionary is insufficient since the term is often seen in conjunction with corporation name “Volkswagen” in newspaper, magazines and newsarticle on a website.

In the assessment of trademark similarity, the Board concluded that “V&W” is obviously dissimilar to the VW emblem and “VW” in appearance, pronunciation and meaning. Due to substantial distinction between the marks, relevant traders and consumers are less likely to confuse or associate “V&W” with opponent and any business entity systematically or economically connected with opponent.

Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed opposition and allowed “V&W” to survive.

It is noteworthy that a mark consisting of two alphabetical letters written in a plain font design is considered less distinctive in Japan. In this respect, IR no. 1272004 for the word mark “VW” did not function to broadly protect the VW emblem in favor of Volkswagen.