Device mark

IP High Court affirmed TM infringement in favor of Wenger over cross design

2021年5月2日Article 4(1)(i), Article 4(1)(iv), backpacks, CROSS, IP High Court, Japan Trademark Law, Swiss, Swiss flag, SWISSWIN, Tokyo District Court, trademark infringement, WEGNER, WEGNER CROSSArticle 4(1)(i), Article 4(1)(iv), Device mark, IP High Court, Similarity of goods, Similarity of mark, Tokyo District Court, Trademark Examination Guideline, trademark infringementMasaki MIKAMI

On April 21, 2021, the Japan IP High Court affirmed the Tokyo District Court’s decision in favor of Wenger S.A. and ruled to dismiss the appeal brought by TravelPlus International who was sentenced for trademark...

Trademark dispute over Armani’s “Eagle” logo

2021年4月17日Armani, Armani Eagle, Armani logo, Article 4(1)(x), Article 4(1)(xi), Article 4(1)(xix), Article 4(1)(xv), Giorgio Armani, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Likelihood of confusion, similarity of mark, Trademark oppositionArticle 4(1)(x), Article 4(1)(xi), Article 4(1)(xix), Article 4(1)(xv), Device mark, Famous mark, Likelihood of confusion, Similarity of goods, Similarity of mark, Trademark Opposition, Trademark RegistrationMasaki MIKAMI

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) rejected Armani’s opposition against Japanese TM Reg no. 6214148 for V-shaped device mark on apparels in class 25. [Opposition case no. 2020-900093, Gazette issued date: March 26,...

Chanel isn’t Gonna Getcha

2021年1月31日Article 4(1)(xi), Article 4(1)(xix), Article 4(1)(xv), CHANEL, Chanel logo, Chanel monogram, Famous mark, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Likelihood of confusion, Monogram, Similarity of goods, similarity of mark, Trademark oppositionArticle 4(1)(xi), Article 4(1)(xix), Article 4(1)(xv), Composite mark, Device mark, Famous mark, Likelihood of confusion, Monogram, Similarity of goods, Similarity of mark, Trademark OppositionMasaki MIKAMI

Chanel lost in its attempt to block Japanese Trademark Registration No. 6160592 for a composite mark consisting of words “GONNA GETCHA” combined with a design made of two inverted and interlocked “G”.[Opposition...

Mercedes-Benz StarParts vs Star-Parts

2021年1月3日Article 4(1)(xi), Mercedes Benz, similarity of mark, StarParts, trademark appealAlphabetical word, Article 4(1)(xi), Composite mark, Device mark, Famous mark, Refusal appeal, Similarity of goods, Similarity of mark, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

In an administrative decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) held the “Mercedes-Benz Star Parts” with a car device mark is dissimilar to the “Star-Parts” word mark.[Appeal case no. 2020-650009, Gazette issued...

Bentley Victorious in Trademark Opposition over Winged B logo

2020年10月18日Article 4(1)(vii), Article 4(1)(xix), Article 4(1)(xv), Bentley, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Likelihood of confusion, Trademark opposition, Winged B logoArticle 4(1)(vii), Article 4(1)(xix), Article 4(1)(xv), Composite mark, Device mark, Famous mark, Likelihood of confusion, Similarity of mark, Trademark OppositionMasaki MIKAMI

The Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided in favor of Bentley Motors Limited, the definitive British car company, in their attempt to oppose the registration of the trademark consisting of a copied...

PGA

2020年10月11日Article 4(1)(xi), Composite mark, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Monogram, Perfect Gear Agency, PGA, Professional Golf Association, trademark appealAbbreviation, Article 4(1)(xi), Composite mark, Device mark, Monogram, Similarity of mark, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

In a recent administrative decision, the Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) disaffirmed the examiner’s refusal and held a composite mark, consisting of words “PERFECT GEAR AGENCY” and a monogram “PGA”, is...

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

2020年6月28日Article 3(1)(vi), I love Japan, inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, JPO, lack of distinctiveness, trademark appeal, trademark applicationAbbreviation, Article 3(1)(vi), Composite mark, compound mark, Device mark, Inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, Refusal appeal, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

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...

BRIDGESTONE Victorious in Trademark Dispute for B Mark Logo

2020年4月12日Article 4(1)(xv), Bridgestone, Famous mark, invalidation trial, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Likelihood of confusion, tiresArticle 4(1)(xv), Article 46, Composite mark, Device mark, Famous mark, Invalidation trial, Likelihood of confusion, Similarity of goods, Similarity of markMasaki MIKAMI

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...

No Success for Monster Energy Claws

2020年4月4日Article 4(1)(xv), JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Likelihood of confusion, MONSTER ENERGY, Monster Energy Claws, Trademark oppositionArticle 4(1)(xv), Device mark, Likelihood of confusion, Similarity of goods, Similarity of mark, Trademark OppositionMasaki MIKAMI

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY against trademark registration no. 6091273 for “M” logo design on goods/services in class 3,5,35 and negated the...

Adidas defeated in 3-stripe trademark dispute

2020年3月20日Adidas, Article 4(1)(vii), Article 4(1)(xv), Famous mark, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Likelihood of confusion, resistance, Three stripes, Trademark opposition, Ultra music festivalArticle 4(1)(vii), Article 4(1)(xv), Device mark, Famous mark, Likelihood of confusion, Similarity of mark, Trademark Opposition, Violation of public orderMasaki MIKAMI

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) held in an opposition filed by Adidas AG that trademark registration no. 6085087 for horizontal three-stripes (Opposed mark) shall remain as valid as ever and entirely dismissed Adidas’...

MARKS IP LAW FIRM

Subscribe and Follow