カテゴリー: Composite mark

Is “You Tuber” a source indicator of Google?

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently dismissed Google LLC’s invalidation petition against TM Reg. no. 5999063 for word mark “NYAN TUBER” by finding “YouTuber” would be famous, but not as a source indicator of Google.
[Invalidation case no. 2018-890081, Gazette issued date: June 26, 2020]

Disputed mark

PECO Co., Ltd., a Japanese business entity working on the health benefits of the human-animal bond, filed a trademark application for word mark “NYAN TUBER” written in Japanese Katakana character (see below) on pet-related services in class 35 and 42 to the JPO on April 3, 2017.

“Nyan” is the sound cats make in Japan. Cats don’t make the same sounds in other countries. In the United States, it sounds like meow. In Germany, it’s miau; and, in France, it’s miaou.

So, “NYAN TUBER” easily reminds Japanese consumers of a person who frequently uploads videos of cats to ‘YouTube’.

The disputed mark was registered on November 24, 2017 (TM Registration no. 5999063).

Invalidation petition by Google

On October 24, 2018, Google LLC filed a petition for invalidation and alleged among others the disputed mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii),(x),(xi),(xv),(xix) of the Trademark Law due to similarity to, or a likelihood of confusion with “YouTuber”

Google argued “YouTuber” has become famous as an indication closely associated with Google’s well-known online video sharing services ‘YouTube’. Because of it, relevant consumers and traders at sights of the disputed mark would connect or associate it with ‘YouTuber’.

YOU TUBER

According to recent polls, becoming a YouTuber or vlogger becomes the most popular career goal for Japanese children and teenagers.

TOP 5 JOBS BOYS WANT (2019)
1. Youtuber/Vlogger, 2. Soccer player, 3. Baseball player, 4. Driver, 5. Policeman

PECO counterargued that it becomes usual for YouTubers to use him/her YouTube name “___Tuber”. If so, relevant consumers at the sight of “NYAN TUBER” videos would just consider the disputed mark represents the video or a person who uploaded it and never conceive the mark as a source indicator of Google or YouTube.

Invalidation Board decision

The JPO Invalidation Board did not question a high degree of popularity and reputation of “YouTube” as a source indicator of Google’s online video sharing services.

In the meantime, the Board found “YouTuber” would be recognized as a generic term to represent ‘a person who creates and uploads videos on the YouTube online video sharing service’ by referring to some dictionaries. In fact, Google does not register the term over any goods and services at all, and thus the Board denied the famousness of “YouTuber” as a source indicator of Google’s service.

With regard to the assessment of the similarity between “YouTuber” and “NYAN TUBER”, the Board found that both marks are dissimilar as a whole even though they have partially the same in the suffix. The difference in the prefix, “NYAN” and “YOU” substantially gives rise to a distinctive impression from appearance, sound, and concept as a whole in the minds of relevant consumers. Accordingly, both marks would be anything but confusingly similar.

Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed Google’s allegations entirely and declared validation of the disputed mark.

Japan IP High Court ruling: “I♡JAPAN” lacks distinctiveness as a trademark

Posted on1 Comment

On June 17, 2020, the Japan IP High Court affirmed the JPO’s rejection of the “I♡JAPAN” mark in relation to various goods of class 14,16,18 and 24 due to a lack of distinctiveness.
[Judicial case no. Reiwa 1(Gyo-ke)10164]

I♡JAPAN

The disputed mark consists of the capital letter “I”, followed by a red heart symbol, below which are the capital letters “JAPAN” (see below). The mark filed by CREWZ COMPANY, a Japanese merchant on April 17, 2018, over various goods in class 14, 16, 18, and 24 [TM application no. 2018-049161].

Noticeably, the JPO already allowed trademark registration for the same mark on apparels in class 25 on March 27, 2015, filed by the applicant [TM Registration no. 5752985]. Regardless of it, the examiner refused disputed mark in contravention of Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law.

Article 3(1)(vi) is a provision to comprehensively prohibit from registering any mark lacking inherent distinctiveness.

Any trademark to be used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant may be registered, unless the trademark:
(vi)　is in addition to those listed in each of the preceding items, a trademark by which consumers are not able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board sustained the examiner’s refusal and decided to reject disputed mark by stating that we are nowadays accustomed to finding goods bearing the “I♡” logo followed by a geographical indication, which represents a strong devotion or attachment to the area/city in its entirety. In fact, the “I♡JAPAN” design is commonly used on several goods as a symbol to support the Japanese sports team or souvenirs for tourists. If so, the design shall not be exclusively occupied by a specific entity. Under the circumstances, relevant consumers are unlikely to conceive the disputed mark as a source indicator of the applicant. Thus, the mark shall be rejected in contravention of Article 3(1)(vi) and the examiner did not error. [Appeal case no. 2018-16957]

To contend against the decision, the applicant filed an appeal to the IP High Court.

IP High Court ruling

The IP High Court dismissed the applicant’s allegation entirely, stating that the disputed mark gives rise to the meaning of “I love JAPAN”. The court found the “I♡” logo followed by a geographical indication is commonly used to appeal a strong devotion or attachment to the area/city. Inter alia, various merchants promote goods bearing the “I♡JAPAN” design as a sign of their support to Japan or the Japanese sports team. If so, relevant consumers and traders would not conceive disputed mark as a source indicator of goods in question, but merely a symbol to represent their devotion and support to Japan. Therefore, the disputed mark shall not be registrable under n contravention of Article 3(1)(vi).

Besides, the court found the fact of a precedent registration for the same mark in a different class would not affect the distinctiveness of disputed mark since it does not have a legal effect to bind subsequent examination in assessing registrability of a junior mark under Article 3(1)(vi).

Japan IP High Court sided with Apple Inc. in “CORE ML” trademark dispute

Posted on

On May 20, 2020, the Japan IP High Court denied the JPO decision and sided with Apple Inc. by finding the “CORE ML” mark is dissimilar to senior trademark registration no. 5611369 for word mark “CORE” in connection with computer software of class 9.
[Case no. Reiwa1(Gyo-ke)10151]

CORE ML

Apple Inc. filed a trademark application for word mark “CORE ML” in standard character by designating computer software in class 9 on November 6, 2017 (TM App no. 2017-145606).

Apple’s Core ML is its own framework for Machine Learning used across Apple products for performing fast prediction or inference with easy integration of pre-trained machine learning models on the edge, which allows you to perform real-time predictions of live images or video on the device.

JPO decision

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) rejected “CORE ML” in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law due to a conflict with senior trademark registration no. 5611369 for word mark “CORE” in standard character over electronic machines, computer software, and other goods in class 9 owned by Seiko Holdings Corporation.

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

In the decision, the JPO stated applied mark apparently consists of two words, “CORE” and “ML”. The term “CORE”, a familiar English word meaning ‘a central and foundational part’, would play a role of source indicator in connection with the goods in question. In the meantime, “ML” is a descriptive term since it is commonly used as an abbreviation of ‘Machine Learning’ in the computer software industry. If so, it is permissible to select the term “CORE” as a dominant portion of applied mark and compare it with the cited mark “CORE”.

To contend against the decision, Apple Inc. filed an appeal to the IP High Court.

IP High Court ruling

The IP High Court, at the outset, referred to the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 which established the criterion to grasp a composite mark in its entirety in the assessment of similarity of the mark.

“Where a mark in dispute is recognized as a composite mark consisting of two elements or more, it is not permissible to assess the similarity of mark simply by means of taking out an element of the composite mark and then comparing such element with the other mark, unless consumers or traders are likely to perceive the element as a dominant portion indicating its source of origin of goods/service, or remaining elements truly lack inherent distinctiveness as a source indicator in view of sound and concept.”

Based on the criteria, the court found that applied mark shall be assessed in its entirety on the following grounds:

  1. “CORE” would be merely recognized as a term to mean ‘a central and foundational part’ in connection with goods in question.
  2. It is unlikely that relevant consumers at the sight of “CORE ML” used on computer software conceive the term “ML” as an abbreviation of ‘machine learning’. If so, “ML” would not give rise to any specific meaning.
  3. The above facts suggest that “CORE” would never play a dominant role and “ML” shall not be considered less distinctive than “CORE” as a source indicator in view of the concept.
  4. From appearance and sound, there is no reasonable ground to believe “CORE” and “ML” shall be recognized individual and separable.

Based on the foregoing, the court pointed out the JPO erred in finding applied mark appropriately and decided that the applied mark “CORE ML” is deemed dissimilar to the cited mark “CORE” as a whole given the remarkable difference in sound and appearance, even if both marks resemble in concept.

JPO decided “Antithesis” dissimilar to a mark consisting of it and other eight terms placed in 9 rows

Posted on

In an administrative appeal disputing trademark similarity between TM registration no. 5661343 for word mark “Antithesis” with its transliteration in Japanese katakana and junior application no. 2017-101730 for a mark consisting of “Antithesis” and the other eight English terms placed in 9 rows, JPO found both marks dissimilar and reversed the examiner’s rejection.
[Appeal case no. 2019-652, Gazette issued date: March 27, 20]

TM Registration no. 5661343

Cited mark, the term “Antithesis” with its transliteration in a Japanese katakana character (see below) has been registered over clothing, footwear, and other goods in class 25 since April 4, 2014.

Junior Application no. 2017-101730  

Applied mark, consisting of nine English terms “Imitation”, “Genuine”, “Chic”, “Rudeness”, “Confusion”, “Silence”, “Gentleman”, “Lady”, and “Antithesis” placed in 9 rows inside a black rectangle (see right), was applied for registration on August 1, 2017, over clothing, footwear, and other goods in class 25 by Element Rule Co., Ltd.

JPO examiner entirely rejected applied mark on the ground that the term “Antithesis” on the bottom row can play a role of source indicator independently because of overall configuration and space above the bottom row. If so, the applied mark as a whole shall be deemed similar to the cited mark.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on May 20, 2019, and argued dissimilarity of both marks.

Appeal Board decision

In the decision, the Board found that:

“From the appearance, “Antithesis” on the bottom row shall not be separable since the term is written in the same font, color, size with other terms “Imitation”, “Genuine”, “Chic”, “Rudeness”, “Confusion”, “Silence” even if there is space in the trademark.
Besides, nine terms do not give rise to any specific meaning in its entirety.  Neither do eight terms except “Antithesis”.
If so, there is no reasonable reason to believe that relevant consumers consider the term “Antithesis” on the bottom row or any other terms a dominant part of the applied mark.
It rather does mark sense that applied mark shall be perceived as a whole displaying respective English word in a different row inside a black rectangle.”

Based on the foregoing, the Board held that the Examiner erred in finding the term “Antithesis” separable as an independent source indicator of the applied mark, and decided to reverse the examiner’s rejection.

I don’t quite agree with the Appeal Board decision. In my view, the respective term contained in a junior mark shall be considered separable unless it gives rise to different meanings in a tight combination with other distinctive terms.

BRIDGESTONE Victorious in Trademark Dispute for B Mark Logo

Posted on1 Comment

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) upheld an invalidation petition by the world’s largest tire and rubber company, Bridgestone Corporation against TM Reg. no. 5664068 for the “SB NAGAMOCHI” mark due to a likelihood of confusion with its well-known B mark logo.
[Invalidation case no. 2018-890068, Gazette issue date: March 27, 2020]

TM Registration no. 5664068

Disputed mark, consisting of “SB” logo and a word “NAGAMOCHI” in a smaller plain letter (see below left), was applied for registration on September 13, 2013 in respect of non-electric prime movers for land vehicles, not including their parts; AC motors or DC motors for land vehicles, not including their parts; automobiles and their parts and fittings; two-wheeled motor vehicles, bicycles and their parts and fittings; adhesive rubber patches for repairing tubes or tires in class 12.

Without confronting with a refusal during substantive examination, disputed mark was registered on April 18, 2014.

Applicant of disputed mark, RMP NAGAMOCHI Technology Japan Ltd promotes various structural parts for automobiles, e.g. cylinders, brakes and clutch hoses, brake calipers, brake pads, rubber parts, filters, gaskets. Disputed mark was actually used on brake pads (see below).

Petition for invalidation

Japan Trademark Law has a provision to retroactively invalidate trademark registration for certain restricted reasons specified under Article 46 (1) provided that interested party files an invalidation petition within five-year statute of limitations.

Bridgestone Corporation, a Japanese tire and rubber company, filed a petition for invalidation against disputed mark on September 5, 2018. Bridgestone argued the mark shall be invalidated due to a likelihood of confusion with its famous “B” mark logo (see above right) when used on all goods in class 12 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.

Board Decision

In the decision, JPO Trial Board sided with Bridgestone by finding that:

  1. In 2016, Bridgestone holds top-ranked market share (14.6%) of automobiles tires in the world, the largest market share (55.9%) of tires and rubber products in Japan.
  2. Bridgestone has consecutively used “B” mark logo on goods and promotions as a symbolic house mark of Bridgestone group since 1984 and even when announcing sponsorship partnership with the Olympic Games and Tokyo2020 Paralympic Games Gold Partner.
  3. Based on the foregoing, it is unquestionable that “B” mark logo has acquired strong and considerable reputation as a source indicator of Bridgestone tires and rubber products among relevant traders and consumers of goods in question.
  4. “B” logo is a ‘strong’ mark because it is depicted with distinctive figurative element so that the mark as a whole can be seen sufficiently distinguishable from an ordinary “B” letter.
  5. Both marks look different when compared in its entirety, however, 2nd letter of “SB” logo is considered highly similar to “B” mark logo from visual point of view.
  6. Disputed goods “automobiles and their parts and fittings; two-wheeled motor vehicles, bicycles and their parts and fittings” and “tires” have the potential to be connected in the minds of the consumers. Since respective products share distributors or can be found in the same stores, there finds proximity in channels of trade and marketing of the products on which the marks are used.
  7. Foregoing weighs in favor of finding confusion. Thus, disputed mark shall be invalidated in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

SWATCH Defeated in SWATCH vs iWATCH Trademark Dispute

Posted on

The Trial Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an invalidation petition by Swiss watch giant, Swatch against TM Reg. no. 5849925 for word mark “iWATCH” owned by U.S. tech giant, Apple Inc.
[Invalidation case no. 2017-890071, Gazette issue date: January 31,2020]

iWATCH

Disputed mark, consisting of a word “iWATCH” in plain block letters (see below), was applied for registration in the name of Apple Inc. on April 25, 2014 in respect of watches, clocks and other goods in class 14.

Immediately after registration on May 13, 2016, Swatch filed an opposition to challenge registrability of disputed mark based on Article 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(vi), 4(1)(xi), 4(1)(xv), 4(1)(xvi) of the Japan Trademark Law, but in vain. [Opposition case no. 2016-900234]

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, materials, efficacy, intended purpose, quantity, shape (including shape of packages), price, the method or time of production or use.

Article 3(1)(vi) is a comprehensive provision to prohibit any mark lacking inherent distinctiveness from being registered.

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

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.

Article 4(1)(xvi) is a provision to prohibit registration of any mark likely to mislead quality of goods or services.

Invalidation Trial

Japan Trademark Law provides a provision to retroactively invalidate trademark registration for specific grounds under Article 46 (1).

In an effort to argue against the opposition decision, Swatch filed a petition for invalidation against disputed mark on October 23, 2017. Swatch argued disputed mark “iWATCH” shall be invalid because of following reasons:

  1. Given disputed mark consists of an alphabet letter “i” and a generic term in relation to a designated goods ‘watch’, the mark can be merely perceived to indicate a value, code, type, mode or standard of ‘watch’. If so, disputed mark shall be lack of distinctiveness and revocable under Article 3(1)(vi) in relation to the goods.
  2. Likewise, relevant consumers would misconceive quality of goods when disputed mark is used on goods other than ‘watch’ in class 14, e.g. jewelry, key holders, jewelry boxes, accessories. If so, disputed mark shall be revocable under Article 4(1)(xvi) in relation to goods other than ‘watch’.
  3. Disputed mark “iWATCH” resembles “SWATCH” from visual and phonetic points of view. It is unquestionable SWATCH has become remarkably famous for watches and fashion items of Swatch Group. If so, a likelihood of confusion will arise between “iWATCH” and “SWATCH” when disputed mark is used on goods in class 14. Thus, disputed mark is revocable under Article 4(1)(xi).

Board Decision

In the decision, the Board sided with Apple Inc. and found that:

  • The Board considers the term “iWATCH” is a coined word in its entirety which does not give rise to any specific meaning at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that relevant consumers conceive disputed mark just as a qualitative indication of goods in question.
  • The Board admits “SWATCH” has been acquired a high degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers and traders as famous watch of Swatch Group. In the meantime, the term appears less unique and creative since it is a dictionary word meaning ‘a sample piece (as of fabric) or a collection of samples’.
  • Difference on initial letter of both marks shall not be negligible on the case. The Board has no good reason to believe both marks are deemed similar from visual, phonetic and conceptual points of view.
  • If so, it is unlikely to happen that relevant consumers with an ordinary care would associate or misconceive disputed mark with Swatch or any entity systematically or economically connected with claimant even when used on ‘watch’.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded “iWATCH” shall be irrevocable in relation to “SWATCH” and dismissed Swatch’s invalidation petition wholly.

French fashion magazine “ELLE” Victorious in Trademark Opposition against “ELLEROSE”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) upheld an opposition filed by HACHETTE FILIPACCHI PRESSE, société anonyme (FR) and decided cancellation of Japanese trademark registration no. 6010765 for a composite mark containing “ELLROSE” due to a likelihood of confusion with a French fashion magazine “ELLE”.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900085, Gazette issued date: December 27, 2019]

ELLEROSE

Opposed mark, a composite mark consisting of three terms “ELLEROSE”, “STYLE UP”, “BODY SHAPE WEAR” aligned vertically in different font size and a silhouette of female lower body depicted in between ‘STYLE’ and ‘UP’ (see below), was applied for registration on July 25, 2017 for ‘underwear, socks, thermal supporters [clothing], waistbands, belts [clothing], special clothing for sports’ in class 25 by ELLEROSE Co., Ltd., a Japanese company. The JPO published opposed mark for registration on February 6, 2018.

ELLEROSE promoted the sales of women’s shapewear using the “STYLE UP” mark. Click here.

Opposition by ELLE

On April 6, 2018, just before the lapse of a two-months opposition period, HACHETTE FILIPACCHI PRESSE, société anonyme (hereinafter referred to as HFP), a French company responsible for the well-known women’s magazine ELLE, which had the largest readership of any fashion magazine in the world, with culturally specific editions published on six continents in the early 21st century, filed an opposition to “ELLEROSE”.

In the opposition, HFP contended that opposed mark shall be cancelled under Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law, stating that relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive opposed mark with HFP or any business entity systematically or economically connected with opponent due to high popularity of opponent’s fashion brand “ELLE” and close resemblance between opposed mark and “ELLE”.

Article 4(1)(xv)

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 “ELLE” has acquired a high degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers and traders as a source indicator of opponent in connection with magazine as well as fashion items based on the facts that (i) “ELLE japon” fashion magazine has been published in Japan since 1982. Annual circulation of the magazine was 940,000 in 2014, (ii) HSP has continuously promoted and licensed the ELLE mark on various fashion items since 1987. The number of licensees increased over 30. It turned over JPY 4.8billion (approx. USD 43million) in 2017.

Besides, the Board found that it is allowed to cut out and compare respective element of opposed mark with opponent mark “ELLE” in assessing similarity of both marks since the Board can’t identify any visual, conceptual or phonetic linkage between the elements to comprehend opposed mark as a whole. Given the elements of “STYLE UP”, “BODY SHAPE WEAR” and a silhouette of female lower body are less distinctive, there is reasonable ground to believe that relevant consumers shall be impressed with the term “ELLEROSE” and consider it a dominant part of opposed mark.

Averages consumers would easily notice the term “ELLEROSE” consists of “ELLE” and “ROSE” which is a familiar French term meaning ‘a garden plant with thorns on its stems and pleasant-smelling flowers’, and then conceive a famous fashion brand, ELLE from the term when used on goods in class 25.

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

Empire Steak House loses to trademark its restaurant name in Japan IP High Court battle

Posted on

On December 26, 2019, the Japan IP High Court ruled to uphold a rejection by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) to International Registration no. 1351134 for the mark “EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE” in class 43 due to a conflict with senior trademark registration no. 5848647 for word mark “EMPIRE”. [Judicial case no. Reiwa1(Gyo-ke)10104]

EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE

The case was brought into the IP High Court after the JPO decided to dismiss an appeal (case no. 2018-650052) filed by RJJ Restaurant LLC (Plaintiff), an owner of IR no.1351134 for mark consisting of stylized-words “EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE” in two lines and a golden cow design (see below) on restaurant services; carry-out restaurant services; catering services in class 43.

EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE, one of the top steakhouses in New York City since 2010, has opened their first restaurant aboard on the first floor of the new Candeo Hotel in Roppongi, Tokyo (JPN) on October 17, 2017. To secure the restaurant name in Japan, RJJ Restaurant LLC applied for registration of disputed mark via the Madrid Protocol with a priority date of March 2, 2017 in advance of the opening.

Senior registered mark “EMPIRE”

The JPO rejected disputed mark by citing senior trademark registration no. 5848647 for word mark “EMPIRE” in standard character on grilled meat and sea foods restaurant services in class 43 based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

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.

Senior registered mark was applied for registration on December 8, 2015 and registered on May 13 ,2016. Apparently, senior mark is actually used as a name of restaurant, “Dining Bar Empire”, located in the city of Ueda, Nagano Prefecture (JPN).

To contend against the decision, plaintiff filed an appeal to the IP High Court on July 19, 2019.

IP High Court Decision

Plaintiff argued the literal elements of disputed mark “EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE” shall be assessed in its entirety by citing web articles relating to applicant’s restaurant which referred to the restaurant as Empire Steak House in full. Like ‘Empire State Building’ and ‘Empire Hotel’, the term “EMPIRE” gives rise to unique meaning and plays a role of source indicator as a whole when used in combination with other descriptive word. Besides, disputed mark contains an eye-catching golden cow which attracts attention to relevant consumers. If so, it is evident that the JPO erred in assessing similarity of mark between “EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE” and “EMPIRE”.

The IP High Court, at the outset, mentioned the Supreme Court decision rendered in 2008 which established general rule to grasp a composite mark in its entirety in the assessment of similarity of mark.

“Where a mark in dispute is recognized as a composite mark consisting of two elements or more, it is not permissible to decide similarity of mark as a whole simply by picking out an element of the composite mark and then comparing such element with other mark, unless consumers or traders are likely to perceive the element as a dominant portion appealing its source of origin of goods/service, or remaining elements truly lack inherent ability to serve as a source indicator in view of sound and concept.”

Next, the court analyzed the configuration of disputed mark and found it is allowed to grasp a literal element “EMPIRE” of disputed mark as dominant portion in light of the criteria applied by the Supreme Court by stating that:

  1. A term “STEAK HOUSE” is commonly used to indicate steak restaurant even in Japan.
  2. Where the term is included in restaurant name, it sometimes happens that relevant consumers over leap the term to shorten the name.
  3. In restaurants, it becomes common practice to display cucina and foodstuffs to be served on signboard or advertisement. Likewise, there are many steak and grilled meat restaurants displaying cow design. If so, relevant consumers at the sight of disputed mark would perceive the cow design as a mere indication to represent foodstuffs at the restaurant.
  4. From appearance, given the configuration of disputed mark, respective element can be considered separable.

Finally, based on the above findings, the court dismissed plaintiff’s arguments and concluded the JPO was correctly assessing similarity of mark. Given dominant portion of disputed mark is identical with the cited mark “EMPIRE” and both marks designate the same or similar services in class 43, disputed mark shall be unregistrable under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

Google successful in a trademark opposition against “ANDROID HOSPITAL”

Posted on

The Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided in favor of Google LLC to retroactively cancel trademark registration no. 6008625 for word mark “ANDROID HOSPITAL” due to a likelihood of confusion with Google’s famous trademark “ANDROID”.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900065, Gazette issued on November 29, 2019]

Opposed mark

SMAHOSPOTAL Co., Ltd., a Japanese business entity running smartphone repair shops, filed a trademark application for word mark “ANDROID HOSPITAL” written in Japanese Katakana character (see below) on smartphone repair or maintenance service in class 37 to the JPO on May 10, 2017.

Opposed mark was published for registration on January 30, 2018 without confronting with office action from the JPO examiner.

Opposition by Google LLC

On March 14, 2018, Google LLC filed an opposition against “ANDROID HOSPITAL”.

Google argued that opposed mark shall be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law on the grounds that relevant consumers would confuse or associate opposed mark, containing Google’s trademark “ANDROID” famous for Google’s Linux-based open source operating system for mobile devices, with opponent when used on the designated service in question.

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

Board Decision

The Board admitted that ANDROID has acquired a high degree of popularity and reputation as a source indicator of Google’s operating system for mobile devices at the time of both initial filing and registration of opposed mark.

In the assessment of similarity, the Board found it is likely that the average consumers would pay a considerable attention to the term “ANDROID” of opposed mark from its configuration because the initial portion of a mark is better remembered and generally considered to be the dominant portion of the mark. If so, a certain degree of similarity exists between two marks.

Even though “ANDROID” is a dictionary word having a meaning of ‘a robot with a human appearance’, it would anything but mean to negate novelty of the term in relation to OS for mobile devices. Besides, the designated service in question and OS for mobile devices are both related to smartphone. Given ‘smartphone repair or maintenance service’ includes ‘repair and maintenance service for Android smartphones’ as a matter of course and these are purchased or consumed by the same consumers (the general public), the Board considers opponent business and the service in question are closely associated.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that, from totality of circumstances and evidences, relevant traders and consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of opposed mark used in relation to the service (class 37) with Google or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent and declared cancellation based on Article 4(1)(xv).

JAGUAR LAND ROVER Lost Trademark Opposition over Jaguar Logo

Posted on1 Comment

The Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) held a junior trademark registration no. 6104905 for a composite mark comprised of “JAGTEC” and feline device is neither similar to, nor likely to cause confusion with senior trademark registrations for leaping jaguar logo owned by Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. when used on automobiles in class 12.
[Opposition case no. 2019-900064, Gazette issued date: October 25, 2019]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark (see below) was applied for registration on March 29, 2018 by designating automobiles and its structural parts in class 12, and published for registration on January 8, 2019 without confronting any office action from the JPO examiner.

Opposition by Jaguar Land Rover

Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. filed an opposition on February 28, 2019 before the JPO and claimed that opposed mark shall be cancelled based on Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law by citing trademark registrations for its iconic jaguar logos (see below) which include the image of a leaping jaguar, accompanied by the word “jaguar”, which the opponent claims to be used over 75 years old.

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.

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.

Jaguar Land Rover claimed that , inter alia, opposed mark, consisting of a leaping feline device and literal element starting from “JAG”, looks confusingly similar to the cited marks from visual, oral, and conceptual points of view. Besides, the goods in question is identical with that of cited marks. If so, opposed application “for the contested goods would be recognized as uniquely and unmistakably identifying or suggesting a connection to opponent , and thus relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive opposed mark with a famous car brand “JAGUAR”.

Opposition decision

To my surprise, the Opposition Board pointed out that Jaguar Land Rover alleged the leaping jaguar logo has been used since 1938 and well-acquainted with relevant consumers though, it is questionable whether cited marks have acquired a substantial reputation as a result of consecutive use from the produced evidences.

Besides, the Board flatly negated similarity between opposed mark and cited marks respectively.

By taking into consideration uncertain famousness of cited marks and low degree of similarity between the marks, the Board concluded relevant traders and consumers are unlikely to confuse or associate opposed mark with opponent or any business entity economically or systematically connected with Jaguar Land Rover even when used on automobiles. Based on the foregoing, opposed mark shall not be cancelled under Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law.