DIOR Failed to Cancel Trademark “DIORLV”

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Christian Dior Couture in a trademark opposition against TM Reg no. 6305075 for word mark “DIORLV” in class 25 by finding dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion with a world-renowned fashion brand “Dior”.

[Opposition case no. 2020-900352, Gazette issued date: November 26, 2021]

“DIORLV”

The opposed mark, “DIORLV” in standard character, was sought for registration by a Chinese individual to be used on underwear, coats, pajamas, swimsuits, raincoats, footwear, caps and hats, gloves, trousers, skirts, yoga shirts, yoga pants in class 25 on December 25, 2019.

The JPO examiner granted protection of the opposed mark on October 13, 2020, and published for opposition on November 4, 2020.


Opposition by Christian Dior

To contend registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Christian Dior Couture filed an opposition on December 25, 2020.

In the opposition, Christian Dior asserted the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii), (xi), (xv), (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law on the grounds that the opposed “DIORLV” mark contains the term “Dior”, an abbreviation of a world-renowned fashion brand “Christian Dior” and the opponent. Besides, the opposed mark will be perceived as a combination of abbreviation of two famous brands, “Christian Dior” and “Louis Vuitton.” If so, it is reasonable to consider the term “DIOR” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark that gives rise to the same sound and concept with the senior registered mark “Dior” owned by the opponent.


JPO decision

The Opposition Board of JPO admitted a substantial degree of reputation and popularity of “Dior” as an abbreviation of “Christian Dior” and the opponent in relation to fashion items, e.g., women’s dresses, bags, shoes, jewelry, glasses, watches, fountain pens, lighters.

In the meantime, the Board did not find the term “DIOR” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark. Based on the overall assessment of similarity, the Board held both marks dissimilarity by stating that:

  1. From appearance and pronunciation, “DIORLV” and “Dior” look sufficiently different with or without “LV” in the suffix position.
  2. Both marks are distinguishable in concept since “DIORLV” does not give rise to any specific meaning. “Dior” has a meaning of world-renowned fashion brand “Christian Dior.”

Given a low degree of similarity of the marks, it is unlikely that relevant consumers would recognize a source of goods in question bearing the opposed mark from Christian Dior Couture or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent.

Furthermore, the Board has no reason to believe the term “DIOR” of the opposed mark is separable from the term “LV” and independently plays a role in the source indicator. Accordingly, the opposed mark shall not be construed to contain a famous abbreviation of the opponent.

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

TM Opposition: Claude Monet vs Monet Design

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with ACADEMIE DES BEAUX-ARTS, an owner of Musée Marmottan Monet, and decided to cancel Japanese TM Registration no. 6245564 for a composite mark containing literal elements “Monet Design” in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

[Opposition case no. 2020-900171, Gazette issued date: October 29, 2021]

TM Reg no. 6245564

The opposed mark (see below) was sought for registration by a Japanese individual on various goods and services in class 16, 20, 25, 27, 35, 41, 42, and 45 on February 1, 2019.

The JPO granted protection on March 27, 2020, and published for opposition on May 12, 2020.


Opposition by ACADEMIE DES BEAUX ARTS

On July 10, 20210, before the lapse of a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, ACADEMIE DES BEAUX-ARTS, an owner of Musée Marmottan Monet, filed an opposition. The opponent argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing IR 958197 for the wordmark “CLAUDE MONET” (see below).

Article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law prohibits any mark likely to cause damage to the social and public interest and disrupt the order of fair competition from registration. Trademark Examination Guidelines set forth any sign created after “the Name of a Historical Person or Name of a Well-Known or Famous Deceased Person” shall be objectionable under the article.

TEG provides six factors to apply the article.

  1. Popularity of the well-known or famous historical person;
  2. Acceptance of the name of the historical person among the nation or region;
  3. Availability of the name of the historical person;
  4. Relationship between the availability of the name of the historical person and the designated goods or services;
  5. Circumstance, purpose, or reason of the application; and
  6. Relationship between the historical person and the applicant.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board found the late Claude Monet has been a world-famous French painter known even among the general public in Japan. There is no doubt that the public at the sight of the word “Monet” would conceive the painter. Because of it, “Monet” has been highly recognized as an abbreviation of the late Claude Monet.

Besides, it is certain that the opponent inherits the property and paintings of Claudia Monet. In view of activities of the opponent as a public organization to exhibit, manage, and promote the paintings in France as well as other countries, the word “Monet” has not only played a significant role in the business field of sightseeing and art but also acquired substantial value as public property of France.

As for the opposed mark, the Board does not find a reason to believe that the word “Monet” inseparably combines with other elements. If so, relevant consumers are likely to consider the word “Monet” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to cancel the opposed mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii).

Failed trademark opposition by Disney over a 3-circle silhouette

In a recent decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Disney Enterprises, Inc. against TM Reg no. 6303837 for a composite mark containing a three-round device due to a low degree of similarity to famous Mickey’s 3-circle silhouette.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900006, Gazette issued date: September 24, 2021]

Opposed mark

Aoki shofuan Co., Ltd., a Japanese confectionery maker, applied a composite mark consisting of words “TSUKIGESHO”, “FACTORY”, its Japanese language and a three-round device (see below) for use on retail or wholesales service in relation to confectionery, processed foods and beverage (tea, coffee, cocoa) in class 35 with the JPO on October 21, 2019.

The JPO examiner granted protection of the opposed mark on September 23, 2020, and published for opposition on November 4, 2020.


Opposition by Disney

To oppose against registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Disney Enterprises, Inc. filed an opposition against the opposed mark on January 4, 2021.

Disney argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Trademark Law because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of Mickey’s 3-circle silhouette (see below) as a source indicator of Disney and a high degree of similarity between the opposed mark and the opponent’s famous mark.


JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board did not question the famousness of Mickey’s 30-circle silhouette as a source indicator of Disney and their business since most consumers would conceive a world-famous iconic character “Mickey Mouse” at the sight of the silhouette.

In the meantime, the Board negated similarity between the marks by stating that:

  1. From appearance, both marks are easily distinguishable because the opposed mark contains distinctive literal elements “TSUKIGESHO” and its Japanese language written in a conspicuous manner, and the figurative element (three round silhouette) is depicted upside down.
  2. Phonetically, both marks are quite dissimilar because the opponent mark does not give rise to a pronunciation contrary to the opposed mark.
  3. Conceptually, although the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning, both marks are dissimilar given the opponent mark is well-known for an indication of Mickey Mouse.
  4. In view of different configuration of the figurative element by depicting three circles upside down, relevant consumers are unlikely to associate the three-round device of the opposed mark with Mickey Mouse. If so, the figurative element would not be considered as a prominent portion to play a source indicator of the opposed mark.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO found both marks are too dissimilar to cause a likelihood of confusion. If so, the Board can’t find reasonable grounds to believe the opposed mark shall be canceled under Article 4(1)(x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) and decided to dismiss the opposition.

Isn’t it MIRACLE?

In recent administrative decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided TM Reg no. 6253344 for wordmark “Miracle Volume” is dissimilar to senior registered mark “MIRACLESUIT” and “MIRACLEBODY” and dismissed an opposition claimed by A&H Sportswear Co., Inc., the owner of senior marks.

[Opposition case no. 2020-900196, Gazette issued date: August 27, 2021]

Miracle Volume

Opposed mark, consisting of the word “Miracle Volume” in standard character, was filed by a Chinese company for use on clothing, footwear, headgear as well as swimsuits in class 25 with the JPO on June 4, 2019 (TM Application no. 2019-77831).

The JPO admitted registration on May 12, 2020 and published for opposition on July 9, 2020.


Opposition by A&H Sportswear

A&H Sportswear Co., Ltd. filed an opposition on August 11, 2020, and argued the opposed mark “Miracle Volume” shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law since the opposed mark is similar to its owned senior marks, “MIRACLESUIT” and “MIRACLEBODY”.

Allegedly, the word “Volume” has a low degree of distinctiveness since it just implies the goods in question voluminous. If so, a prominent portion of the opposed mark shall be undoubtedly “Miracle”.

Senior TM Reg no. 4789644 for wordmark “MIRACLESUIT” in class 25, consists of two words, “MIRACLE” and “SUIT”. It is obvious that the word “SUIT” lacks distinctiveness in relation to the goods in questions since it means ‘a set of clothes or a piece of clothing to be worn in a particular situation or while doing a particular activity’. Consequently, a prominent portion of “MIRACLESUIT” shall be “MIRACLE”.

TM Reg no. 5121472 for wordmark “MIRACLEBODY” in class 25, also consists of two words, “MIRACLE” and “BODY”. The word “BODY” has a low degree of distinctiveness in relation to the goods in question since it suggests the goods bearing the mark for consumers to put on. If so, likewise, a prominent portion of “MIRACLEBODY” shall be “MIRACLE”.

In so far as relevant consumers conceive of the literal element of “MIRACLE” as a prominent portion on both marks, they shall be confusingly similar accordingly, A&H Sportswear alleged.


JPO decision

The Opposition Board did not find a reasonable ground to believe that the consumers consider the word “Miracle” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark from visual and phonetical points of view. Besides, the word “Volume” per se would not entirely be descriptive in relation to apparels. If so, the opposed mark shall be taken for a coined word in its entirety.

Similarly, from visual, phonetical and conceptual points of view, the cited marks, “MIRACLESUIT” and “MIRACLEBODY”, shall be taken for a coined word in its entirety.

In assessing similarity of mark, the Board opined that the opposed mark “Miracle Volume” and the cited marks are sufficiently distinguishable because of difference arising from the word “Volume”, “SUIT”, and “BODY”.

Even if the goods in question are deemed similar to that of the cited marks, severe distinction in appearance and sound would be unlikely to cause confusion among relevant consumers.

Based on the foregoing, the Board did not side with A&H Sportswear and dismissed the opposition totally.

BEYOND MEAT defeats “Beyond Meat Burger”

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Beyond Meat Inc. and canceled TM Reg no. 6197193 for wordmark “Beyond Meat Burger” by free-riding on the business reputation of “BEYOND MEAT”.

[Opposition case no. 2020-900023, Gazette issued date: July 30, 2021]

Beyond Meat Burger

Opposed mark, consisting of a wordmark “Beyond Meat Burger” written in a Japanese katakana character (see below), was filed by a Japanese individual on July 23, 2018, for use on ‘meat products’ in class 29 and ‘clothing’ in class 25.

Subsequently, the applicant deleted the designated goods in class 29.

The mark was registered on November 15, 2019, and published for opposition on December 10, 2019.


BEYOND MEAT

Beyond Meat Inc., a US food processing company that specializes in providing plant-based meat, filed an opposition against the “Beyond Meat Burger” mark with the JPO on January 24, 2020, before the lapse of a two-month statutory period for the opposition.

In the opposition brief, Beyond Meat argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xix) prohibits registering a trademark that is identical with, or similar to, another entity’s famous mark, if such trademark is aimed for unfair purposes, e.g. gaining unfair profits, or causing damage to the entity.

It is interpreted that the “famous mark” under the article does not require a high reputation among Japanese consumers. If domestic consumers recognize such a reputation in foreign countries, it will suffice.

Beyond Meat alleged that the “BEYOND MEAT” mark has been well known for plant-based meat substitutes by the opponent to meat distributors as well as US consumers (It should be noted that Beyond Meat has yet to launch the business in Japan as of now). It is obvious that the opposed mark is confusingly similar to “BEYOND MEAT”. Presumably, the opposed party must have filed the opposed mark with a fraudulent intention to prevent registration of the “BEYOND MEAT” mark in Japan and gain unjust enrichment by doing so.


JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that the “BEYOND MEAT” mark has acquired a remarkable degree of reputation among US consumers as a source indicator of plant-based meat substitutes by Beyond Meat Inc. even before the application date of the opposed mark

The Board assessed the opposed mark is confusingly similar to “BEYOND MEAT”. Relevant consumers with an ordinary care would see the term “Beyond Meat” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark because the consumers get familiar with the English word “Burger.”

A fact that the opposed party initially designated ‘meat products’ implies the applicant’s intention to use the opposed mark on the goods that are closely associated with meat substitutes. If so, the Board had a reasonable ground to believe the opposed mark was filed with an intention to take advantage of goodwill and business reputation associated with Beyond Meat’s tradename and trademark.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to retroactively cancel the opposed mark “Beyond Meat Burger” in contravention of Article 4(1)(xix).

No confusion between WeWork and iWork

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by WeWork Companies Inc. against Japanese trademark registration no. 6271212 for wordmark “iWork” by finding less likelihood of confusion with “WeWork”.

[Opposition case no. 2020-900249, Gazette issued date: July 30, 2021]

iWork

Desigmassion Company Ltd. applied the wordmark “iWork” in standard character for registration on ‘rental of offices for coworking’ in class 36 and ‘rental of temporary accommodation; providing foods and beverages; rental of meeting rooms; rental of facilities for exhibitions’ in class 43 wit the JPO on February 1, 2021 (TM App no. 2020-011256).

The mark did not face any refusal during the substantive examination and was published for opposition on August 4, 2020.

The company offers all-inclusive coworking space and private office “iWork” in Downtown Tokyo.


WeWork

WeWork Companies Inc., one of the leading global flexible space providers, filed an opposition against the iWork mark on October 1, 2020, before the lapse of a two-month statutory period for the opposition, in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits registering a trademark that is likely to cause confusion with a business of another entity.

The likelihood of confusion is a key criterion when assessing the similarity of trademarks. To establish whether there is the likelihood of confusion, the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity will be assessed as well as the goods and/or services involved. This assessment is based on the overall impression given by those marks, account being taken, in particular, of their distinctive and dominant components. A low degree of similarity between the goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa.

WeWork argued that “iWork” shall be deemed similar to the opponent’s senior registered mark “WeWork” (IR no. 1453286) because a mere difference of the prefix “we” and “i” would be insufficient for relevant consumers to distinguish two marks from phonetical and visual points of view.

Besides, in view of a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity of the opponent mark as a source indicator of coworking space among relevant consumers, a close association between their services, and resemblance in appearance and sound between the marks, it is unquestionable that relevant consumers are likely to conceive “WeWork” at the sight of the opposed mark “iWork” when used on the services in question.


JPO decision

To my surprise, the JPO Opposition Board did not admit the famousness of the “WeWork” mark by stating that the opponent just had 27 locations in six cities and 22,000 users in Japan at the time of filing the opposed mark, and the produced evidence was insufficient to find a high degree of recognition among domestic consumers.

In the assessment of similarity between the marks, the Board found that relevant consumers were apt to pay higher attention to the prefix of a mark. Given the short sound consisting of four syllables, a different letter and pronunciation in the prefix position shall give rise to a distinctive impression in the minds of the consumer. Both marks are undisputedly dissimilar in concept.

By taking into consideration a low degree of similarity between “iWork” and “WeWork”, and insufficient evidence to assume the famousness of “WeWork”, even if the services in dispute are closely associated with WeWork’s business, the Board had no reason to believe the opposed mark would cause confusion with WeWork when used on the disputed services in class 36 and 43.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the opposed mark would not be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (x) of the Trademark Law and dismissed the opposition entirely.

Trademark Dispute over “RED HOT”

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed trademark opposition against wordmark “REDHOT” written in Katakana character opposed by The French’s Food Company LLC who owns senior trademark “REDHOT” and “FRANK’S REDHOT” in class 30.

[Opposition case no. 2020-900289, Gazette issued date: June 25, 2021]

Opposed mark “REDHOT”

Opposed mark, consisting of the word “REDHOT” written in Japanese Katakana character (see below), was filed by Kentucky Fried Chicken Japan (KFC) for use on fried chicken, meat, processed meat products, and other goods in class 29 and hamburgers, hot dog sandwiches, bread rolls, and other goods except for seasonings and spices in class 30 with the JPO on November 6, 2018 (TM Application no. 2018-142676).

KFC Japan has begun selling the “Red Hot Chicken”, red and white pepper with a touch of habanero, giving it a crisp, spicy flavor and the taste of domestic chicken in limited quantities since 2004.


FRANK’S REDHOT

The French’s Food Company LLC, an owner of the #1 brand of hot sauce “Frank’s RedHot” in America, filed an opposition on November 2, 2020.

Opponent argued that the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) because of similarity to senior TM Reg nos. 4723565 and 5523112 for wordmark “REDHOT” on seasonings and spices in class 30 (Citation 1), and a likelihood of confusion with TM Reg no. 5523111 for wordmark “FRANK’S REDHOT” (Citation 2) which has become famous as a source indicator in connection with hot sauce as a result of substantial and continuous use since 1920.


JPO decision

The Opposition Board of JPO found that Article 4(1)(xi) shall not be applicable to the opposed mark.

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

Since the designated goods, seasonings and spices, of the opposed mark are deemed dissimilar to any other goods belonging to class 30. In so far as respective goods in question are dissimilar, the opposed mark shall not be subject to the article even though the mark is identical with Citation 1.

The Board questioned whether the mark “FRANK’S REDHOT” has acquired a certain degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers in Japan by taking account of the produced evidence. The mere fact that the opponent’s hot sauces get to be a popular choice at specific dining restaurants is insufficient to support the famousness of Citation 2 in Japan.

Besides, relevant consumers would be easily able to distinguish the opposed mark with “FRANK’S REDHOT” by means of the distinctive term “FRANK’S” of Citation 2.

Given the low degree of similarity and unproven famousness as a source indicator of the opponent, the Board concluded it is unlikely that relevant consumers would confuse the source of goods bearing the opposed mark with the opponent or Citation 2 from the totality of circumstances, and thus dismissed the opposition entirely.

Which to win, first to file or first to trademark?

A recent JPO decision over trademark opposition for “Le Tan” will serve as a cautionary message to brand owners who intend to launch business in Japan before too long.


Le Tan

Heritage Le Tan Pty Limited, an Australian Private Company, acquired the Le Tan brand in 2015 for use on tanning lotions & sprays, tanning oils, coconut screen, after sun, which has been made in Australia since 1977 and grown into the number one tanning brand in Australia.

Heritage filed a trademark application with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) for its iconic house mark (see below) on ‘Sunscreen preparations; lotions for cosmetic purposes; sun protection oils [cosmetics]; sunscreen creams; sun-tanning preparations [cosmetics]; self-tanning creams; self-tanning lotions; self-tanning preparations [cosmetic]; cosmetics’ in class 3 on October 28, 2019, when six months have passed after actual sales took place allegedly in April 2019, in Japan.

On November 30, 2020, the JPO examiner raised her objection due to a conflict with senior trademark registration no. 6251672 in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.


Opposed mark “LE TAN”

Chanson cosmetics Inc., a Japanese private company, filed the cited mark “LE TAN” for use on ‘cosmetics and toiletries’ in class 3 on June 20, 2019, with the JPO.

The mark, consisting of words “LE TAN” and its transliteration written in Japanese Katakana characters (see below), was registered on May 14, 2020, and published for post-grant opposition on June 2, 2020.


Opposition: “Le Tan” vs “LE TAN”

Apparently, in anticipation of the upcoming refusal or perhaps, because of any other reason, Heritage filed an opposition against the mark on July 30, 2020.

In the opposition brief, Heritage argued the opposed mark shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xix) of the Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xix) prohibits registering a trademark that is identical with, or similar to, other entity’s famous mark, if such trademark is aimed for unfair purposes, e.g. gaining unfair profits, or causing damage to the entity.

Heritage argued a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity of the Le Tan mark in Australia in relation to sunscreen and suntan preparations [cosmetics] as a result of substantial use of the mark by producing evidence to demonstrate growing annual sales (approx. 16 million Australian dollars in 2017), the second market share of 16 % in Australia (2013) , increasing website visitors (approx. 86,000 in 2019) , email subscriptions (24,000) and followers (Instagram: 250,000, Facebook: 180,000) , and annual expense for advertisement and publication (approx. 0.6 ~ 1 million Australian dollars for the past decade) by means of television, radio, magazine, the internet.

Heritage mentioned they had begun to export their products since 2015 and launched promotion and distribution to Japanese consumers in April 2019.

In an attempt to prove Chanson’s unlawful intention, Heritage pointed out the fact that Chanson has registered the mark “LE TEMPS” pronounced the same as “LE TAN” on the same class since 1984 and used the mark on skin-care cosmetics in fact. Heritage alleged that it appeared unreasonable for Chanson to file the opposed mark which has a same pronunciation but different spelling since Chanson must be convinced that skin-care conscious consumers are unwilling to use cosmetics giving rise to an impression of ‘the suntan.’ If so, Chanson must have filed the opposed mark just two months after the launch of trademarking Australian brand “Le Tan” in Japan simply because of interrupting their business.


JPO Decision

The Opposition Board of the JPO admitted a certain degree of reputation and popularity of the “Le Tan” mark in Australia in view of substantial use on sunscreen or suntan preparations [cosmetics] over four decades, however, the Board denied Heritage’s allegation that the opposed mark was filed with a malicious intention by stating:

From the totality of circumstance, the Board can’t find any reason to believe that Chanson sought for protection of the opposed mark to gain unfair profits or cause damage to the opponent. A mere fact the opposed mark was filed a few months after the opponent started to use the “Le Tan” mark in Japan was insufficient to find unfair purposes subject to Article 4(1)(xix). Heritage failed to convince the Board of the likelihood of interruption. Noticeably, according to the produced evidence, the opponent business in Japan is expanding contrary to their allegations.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to dismiss the opposition entirely and concluded the Opposed mark shall remain valid as the status quo.

Glenfiddich Wins Trademark Dispute Over Deer Design

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Glenfiddich, the world’s most awarded Single Malt Scotch Whisky, who fought against trademark registration for the BLACK FOREST composite mark in class 33 due to close resemblance to the Glenfiddich deer design. [Opposition case no. 2018-685017, Gazette issued date: April 30, 2021]


BLACK FOREST composite mark

The opposed mark, consisting of the words “BLACK FOREST”, “FINEST WINE QUALITY FROM GERMANY” and a stylized stag’s head (see below), was filed with the JPO on May 12, 2017, for use on ‘Wines and sparkling wines; all the above goods made in Germany’ in class 33 by Badischer Winzerkeller eG via the Madrid Protocol (IR no. 1353061).

On June 6, 2018, the JPO granted protection of the opposed mark and published for post-registration opposition.


Opposition by Glenfiddich

Glenfiddich owner William Grant & Sons opposed on the basis of its earlier international registrations (IR no. 919341&919342) in the mark GLENFIDDICH and a stylized stag head (see below) for use on whisky and whisky-based liqueurs are concerned, only scotch whisky and scotch whisky-based liqueurs produced in Scotland of class 33, in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

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

In the opposition, the opponent argued, inter alia, a close resemblance of the stylized deer design. Taking into consideration the design element is visually separable from literal elements, relevant consumers at the sight of the stylized stag head of the opposed mark that appeared on a wine label are likely to connect it with Glenfiddich.

JPO decision

The Opposition Board of the JPO found that judging from the configuration of each mark, it is allowed to assess the similarity of both marks by means of comparing its design element.

The Board held the stylized stag head of both marks would give rise to a resembled impression from appearance and the same concept regardless of some differences in detail.

If so, even though the pronunciation of respective design is incapable of comparison, from the totality of the circumstances, relevant consumers are likely to confuse the origin of the goods in question bearing the opposed mark with Glenfiddich.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to retroactively cancel IR no. 1353061 in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.