カテゴリー: Device mark

Audemars Piguet Unsuccessful Challenge of TM Registration for Iconic Shape of “ROYAL OAK” Timepiece

Posted on

On June 8, 2023, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an appeal filed by Audemars Piguet Holding SA, a Swiss luxury watchmaker, and affirmed the examiner’s rejection of TM App no. 2020-20319 for a device mark representing AP’s iconic “ROYAL OAK” watch collection by finding a lack of inherent and acquired distinctiveness. [Appeal case no. 2021-013234]

Audemars Piguet “ROYAL OAK” Watch Collection

On February 26, 2020, Audemars Piguet Holding SA (AP) filed a trademark application for the shape of the flagship watch collection “ROYAL OAK” (see below) to be used on ‘watches’ in class 14 with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) [TM application no. 2020-20319].

The mark consists of a dial with tapisserie pattern and hour markers, minute track, date window, an octagonal bezel with 8 hexagonal screws, case, crown, and a lug of the famed “ROYAL OAK” watch collections.

On July 1, 2021, the JPO examiner rejected the applied mark due to a lack of inherent distinctiveness based on Articles 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law by stating that relevant consumers would simply recognize it as a generic shape of a wristwatch, not a specific source indication. Besides, from the produced evidence, the examiner did not find the shape per se has acquired nationwide recognition as a source indicator of AP’s watches.

Appeal against the examiner’s rejection by AP

AP filed an appeal against the rejection on October 1, 2021, and alleged inherent distinctiveness as well as acquired distinctiveness of the shape in relation to watches.

AP argued the shape shall be considered inherently distinctive by virtue of a combination of three unique features, namely, (i) an octagonal bezel, (ii) 8 hexagonal screws, and (iii) tapisserie pattern on the surface of a dial. It is inappropriate for the examiner to negate the distinctiveness of the applied mark based on similar watches by third parties that imitate “ROYAL OAK” collections.

Allegedly, “ROYAL OAK” luxury watches have been promoted for sale in Japan since 1972. Annual sales exceed JPY 8 billion on average in the past six years. Each year, AP spent more than JPY400 million on advertisement and promotion in Japan. As a result of the substantial use of the shape on famous AP watches over four decades, even if the shape inherently lacks distinctiveness, it has acquired a significant role as a source indication.

JPO Appeal Board decision

In the decision, the Board held “There are plenty of wristwatches placed in the marketplace by many watchmakers that have a similar shape to the dial, bezel, case, crown, and lug of the applied mark (see below examples). Therefore, the shape, even if it does not contain hands and strap, is unlikely to indicate the origin of goods and distinguish them from competitors”. If so, the examiner’s findings are adequate and the Board did not find any error in applying Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law on the case.

Besides, the Board questioned if the shape per se has played a role in the source indication of AP’s watches regardless of admitting the presence of “ROYAL OAK” watches in the market for long years on the following grounds.

  1. Number of official stores, 11 is by no means numerous.
  2. The evidence did not suggest any transaction of wristwatches using the applied mark (namely, a watch without strip and hands)
  3. AP did not submit objective evidence to support the sales of “ROYAL OAK” watches
  4. Since AP did not make clear the market share of “ROYAL OAK” watches, it is impossible to compare them with competitors’ watches.
  5. Publications and internet articles pertinent to the “ROYAL OAK” watches always features literal elements “ROYAL OAK”, “AP” or “AUDEMARS PIGUET”.
  6. AP did not produce a market survey to demonstrate how many consumers can identify a source of the wristwatch from the applied mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found the applied mark has not acquired a certain degree of recognition as a source indicator of a specific entity among relevant consumers in relation to watches under Article 3(2), and decided to refuse the shape of AP’s “ROYAL OAK” watches.

Champion loses trademark opposition over “C” logo

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC against TM Reg no. 6560200 for the C device mark due to dissimilarity to and the unlikelihood of confusion with the iconic “C” emblem of Champion.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900315, decided on May 22, 2023]

Opposed mark

DAIEI TRADING CO., LTD. a Japanese company, applied a device mark consisting of the “C” curved line and a heart & circle placed vertically inside of the line (see below) for use on apparel, footwear, sports shoes, and sportswear in class 25 with the JPO on December 8, 2021.

The JPO examiner did not raise any objection to the mark at all in the course of the substantive examination.

Accordingly, the mark was registered on May 23, 2022, and published for post-grant opposition on May 31, 2022.

Opposition by Champion

HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on August 2, 2022.

HBI argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law on the grounds that a high degree of similarity between the opposed mark and the iconic “C” emblem (see below) becoming famous as a source indicator of the Champion brand in connection with casual wear, sportswear, and other related goods would inevitably cause confusion among relevant consumers when the opposed mark is used on goods in question.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that the “C” emblem has acquired a high degree of reputation as a result of substantial use in Japan for more than four decades and become famous as a source indicator of the opponent.

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

From the appearance, both marks contain a curved line that looks like a “C” letter; however, the respective line looks totally different by means of a wide difference in line thickness. Besides, there is a clear difference between figurative elements depicted inside of the line (a heart & circle device placed vertically in the opposed mark, a thick vertical line in the cited mark). Therefore, the two marks are visually distinguishable.

Conceptually, the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. Meanwhile, the cited mark has the meaning of ‘famous brand of the opponent.’ If so, both marks are dissimilar in concept.

Based on the foregoing, the Board has a reason to believe that the opposed mark is dissimilar to the cited mark, even if they cannot be compared in terms of pronunciation.

In a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the Board found:

Even if the cited mark is widely recognized among consumers in Japan as a source indicator of the Champion’s business, given the low degree of similarity to the opposed mark, it would be unlikely that relevant traders and consumers at the sight of the opposed mark used on goods in question immediately associate or recall the cited mark or the opponent business.

If so, it is reasonable to consider that relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse the source of the goods bearing the opposed mark with Champion or another entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent.

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

Unsuccessful Trademark Opposition over MONCLER Logo Outline

Posted on

On May 5, 2023, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition against the composite mark (TM Registration no. 6561093) filed by Moncler SpA, the Italian luxury fashion label, due to the dissimilarity to a device mark for the Moncler logo outline (Opposition no. 2022-900312).

Opposed mark

On December 4, 2021, COCOMi Corporation sought registration with the JPO of the composite mark consisting of the word “CONOMi” beneath the C logo and encircling outline (see below) for use on bags and pouches in Class 18 and apparel in Class 25.

The mark was registered on May 25, 2022, without receiving any refusal in the course of the substantive examination by the JPO. Thereafter, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on June 2, 2022.

Opposition by MONCLER

Italian luxury fashion brand MONCLER filed an opposition on July 28, 2022, contending that the opposed mark should be canceled for being in contravention with Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

MONCLER argued the opposed mark was similar to the earlier IR no. 991913 for the bell-shaped device mark representing the Moncler logo outline (see below) and was likely to cause confusion with MONCLER due to the resemblance between the opposed mark and Moncler’s famous mark, and the close relatedness of the goods in question with MONCLER’s business.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board considered the relevant consumers would not see the encircling outline as a prominent portion of the opposed mark by taking account of the coined word “COCOMi” and the entire visual configuration of the mark.

In so far as the encircling outline of the opposed mark perse would not play a role in identifying the source of goods in question, regardless of the resemblance between the encircling outline and the cited mark, the Board has a reason to believe both marks are dissimilar from visual, aural and conceptual points of view in its entirety.

Given the low level of similarity with the cited mark or the Moncler emblem, the Board had no reason to find that there would be a likelihood of confusion where the opposed mark is used on the goods in question, even though the Moncler emblem has acquired a certain degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers in Japan.

Moncler emblem

Consequently, the JPO did not side with MONCLER and decided to dismiss the opposition entirely.

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).

JPO Decision: the Volkswagen Beetle 3D shape Lacks Distinctiveness

Posted on

The JPO Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection and decided to refuse IR no. 1379178 for the 3D shape of the Volkswagen Beetle due to a lack of inherent and acquired distinctiveness in relation to goods of classes 9, 28, and 30.

[Appeal case no. 2020-650030, Gazette issued date: January 27, 2023]

VW Beetle

German car giant Volkswagen AG filed a 3D mark representing the iconic VW Beetle car (see below) in relation to various goods including navigation apparatus for vehicles [onboard computers], toy automobiles, scale model automobiles of classes 9, 28, and 30 with the JPO via the Madrid Protocol on December 7, 2017.

The JPO examiner rejected the mark in contravention of Article 3(1)(iii) and 4(1)(xvi) of the Japan Trademark Law on March 19, 2020, by stating that the mark merely represents a common shape of goods when used on toy automobiles, scale model automobiles of class 28 and chocolate and desserts, ice creams, frozen yogurts and sorbets of class 30, and consumers will misunderstand the quality of goods when used on other designated goods.

Appeal by Volkswagen

Volkswagen filed an appeal against the rejection on July 2, 2020, and argued the inherent and acquired distinctiveness of the 3D mark as a result of substantial use on VW’s automobiles (cl. 12) for more than six decades and around 21.5 million units cumulatively.

JPO Decision

The Appeal Board at its discretion found plenty of goods in the shape of cars promoted for sale in relation to toy automobiles, scale model automobiles (cl. 28), and chocolate and desserts, frozen yogurts, and sorbets (cl. 30).

Bearing this fact in mind, the Board has a reason to believe the applied mark is adopted for a purpose of enhancing function or the aesthetic appeal of the goods in question. If so, the shape still remains within the scope of the descriptive shape of goods and shall be unregistrable due to a lack of inherent distinctiveness in relation to these goods.

Furthermore, the Board pointed out that Volkswagen stopped manufacturing cars in the shape of the applied mark in 2003. There is reasonable doubt that the 3D mark has been famous as a source indicator of VW cars after a lapse of twenty years. Besides, the applicant has not produced any evidence to demonstrate the actual use of the 3D shape on goods in classes 9, 28, and 30 and its sales.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found the 3D mark lacks inherent and acquired distinctiveness in relation to the goods in question and dismissed the appeal entirely.

Trademark Dispute over Side Stripe on Footwear

Posted on

In a trademark dispute along the side of shoes between Vans Incorporated and Revenge X Storm Limited, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Vans Incorporated.

[Invalidation case no. 2021-890049, Decision date: September 29, 2022]

REVENGE shoes

Revenge X Stream Limited filed a device mark representing a shoe for the right leg with a thunder-shaped line along the side of the shoe for use on ‘sports shoes’ in class 25 with the JPO on June 5, 2018.

The mark was successfully registered on October 2, 2020 (TM Reg no. 6299288).

Invalidation action by VANS

VANS INC. filed an invalidation action on September 16, 2021, and argued the mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(x), (xi), and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for the iconic Vans Side stripe used on OLD SKOOL (see below) since 1977.

VANS alleged the appearance of Vans OLD SKOOL perse has become famous to indicate VANS’ shoes among relevant consumers of sports shoes in Japan.

JPO Decision

To my surprise, the JPO Invalidation Board denied a certain degree of reputation and popularity of the Vans Side stripe as a source indicator of VANS’ shoes from the totality of the produced evidence.

Besides, the Board negated the similarity of both marks by stating:

“The mark in question represents a thunder-shaped sideline along the side of sports shoes. On the other hand, the Vans Side stripe consists of a gently wavy curved sideline along the side of the shoes.

Therefore, the appearance of the two marks clearly differs in the shape of the sideline on the side of the shoe and is clearly distinguishable.

In this way, even if both marks cannot be compared in terms of concept, they are dissimilar and unlikely to be confused in terms of appearance and pronunciation, and therefore, the degree of similarity shall be quite low.”

Given a low degree of similarity between the two marks, the Board has a reason to believe that relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse a source of sports shoes bearing the mark in question with VANS.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found the entire allegations of VANS groundless and decided to dismiss invalidation action accordingly.

Failed Opposition by Chanel over Monogram

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed a trademark opposition filed by Chanel against TM Reg no. 6351256 for a composite mark containing a device made of two inverted and interlocked “C” by finding dissimilarity to and the unlikelihood of confusion with Chanel’s monogram.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900169, Decision date: September 30, 2022]

Opposed mark

The opposed mark consists of the words “MUSIC BAR” and “CHAYA”, and a device made of two inverted and interlocked “C” (see below).

HIC Co., Ltd. filed the opposed mark for use on restaurant service in class 43 on August 27, 2020, with the JPO. The examiner granted protection on January 19, 2022, and published for opposition on February 10, 2021.

Opposition by Chanel

Chanel filed an opposition on April 30 and argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for Chanel’s monogram on the ground that:

  1. The figurative element of the opposed mark is similar to the prestigious Chanel’s monogram made of two inverted “c” displayed as an ellipse in its central point (see below).
  2. Given the remarkable degree of popularity and reputation of Chanel’s monogram, relevant consumers with ordinary care are likely to confuse a source of the service in question bearing the opposed mark with CHANEL.
  3. Applicant must have applied the opposed mark, confusingly similar to Chanel’s monogram with an unfair intention to take advantage of the reputation and goodwill associated with Chanel’s famous trademark.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that Chanel’s monogram has acquired a high degree of reputation among relevant consumers of the service in question. Allegedly, CHANEL spent more than 5 billion JP-Yen on advertising in Japan each year since 2014. Annual sales revenue exceeds 50 billion JP-Yen. Jewelry accounts for 3 billion JP-Yen of the revenue.

In the meantime, the JPO denied visual similarity between the figurative element of the opposed mark and the monogram by stating:

“They share a similarity in that they are both figures with two “C”-shaped curves placed back-to-back on the left and right sides so that parts of the curves overlap. However, in addition to differences in the way the “C”-shaped curves are represented (whether the thickness varies or is uniform and whether the opening is wide or narrow), there are also differences in the way the entire composition is represented, such as asymmetrical and symmetrical figures, vertical figures with two deeply overlapping curves and horizontal figures with two shallowly overlapping curves. Furthermore, the overall impression of the composition is clearly different in terms of asymmetrical and symmetrical figures, vertical figures with two curves deeply superimposed and horizontal figures with two curves shallowly superimposed. Therefore, there is no likelihood of confusion in terms of appearance.”

Obviously, there is no likelihood of confusion in terms of appearance and conception. Therefore, taking account of the impression, memory, and association given to traders and consumers by means of the appearance, concept, and pronunciation of two marks as a whole, the Board has a reason to believe that two marks are dissimilar and there is no likelihood of confusion.

Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed the entire allegations of Chanel and allowed the opposed mark to register as the status quo.

MARC JACOBS Failed Trademark Opposition over J Marc

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed trademark opposition filed by Marc Jacobs Trademarks, L.L.C. against TM Reg no. 6462764 for an oval device mark due to dissimilarity to earlier registration for the J Marc logo.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900007, decided on August 24, 2022]

Opposed mark

ORPHE Inc., a Japanese business entity, applied trademark registration for an oval device mark (see below) to be used on goods and services in classes 9, 25, and 42, including computer software, PDAs, and footwear with the JPO on July 14, 2021.

The JPO examiner did not raise any objection in the course of the substantive examination and granted protection on October 19, 2021.

The mark was registered on October 27 and published for opposition on November 16, 2021.

Opposition by Marc Jacobs

On January 12, 2022, Marc Jacobs Trademarks, L.L.C. filed an opposition and alleged the opposed mark shall be canceled in relation to the designated goods of classes 9 and 25 in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing IR no. 1282779 for the J Marc logo (see below), effectively registered on classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25 in Japan since 2017.

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

Marc Jacobs argued both marks share the overall appearance consisting of two letters, “J” and “J”, combined in a way that constitutes an oval. A mere difference of direction (vertical or horizontal) would be anything but significant in assessing the similarity of marks because consumers would not consider the horizontal direction of the J Marc logo as a material factor to indicate the source. By taking into account of close resemblance in appearance and the same sound of “JJ”, the opposed mark shall be deemed similar to the J Marc.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board stated both marks are sufficiently distinguishable for three reasons.

  1. The opposed mark has an impression of a rounded oval because of smoothly curved portions and shorter straight portions. On the other hand, the cited mark gives rise to an impression of a thin oval because of steeply curved portions and longer straight portions.
  2. Encircled blank of the cited mark also looks narrow due to an equal width with the surrounding oval lines. In the meantime, encircled blank of the opposed mark looks wider by virtue of the narrower width of an oval line.
  3. The cutout portion of the opposed mark gives the impression that the entire oval line is cut diagonally. The cited mark would never give such an impression to relevant consumers.

Taking into consideration the above findings, the Board had a reason to believe that relevant consumers are unlikely to consider, contrary to the opponent’s allegations, that both marks consist of two letters “J” and “J”. A mere coincidence of oval configuration is insufficient to find both marks similar in view of the remarkable distinctions of respective marks mentioned above.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded the opposed mark shall not be deemed similar to the J Marc logo and decided to dismiss the opposition entirely.

PUMA wins opposition over Formstrip mark

Posted on

The Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with PUMA SE in trademark opposition against TM Reg no. 6269999 for the stripe device by finding a likelihood of confusion with PUMA’s iconic “Formstrip”.

[Opposition case no. 2020-900248, decision date: June 21, 2022]

Opposed mark

The opposed mark (see below right) was filed with the JPO in the name of Strato Trading Group Inc, a US company, for use on footwear, sports shoes, headwear, trousers, pants, bottoms, jackets, tops, and shirts in class 25 on July 29, 2019.

The JPO examiner did not issue any office action and granted protection of the opposed mark on June 16, 2020 (TM Reg no. 6269999). The opposed mark was published for opposition on August 4, 2020.

PUMA Formstrip

MARKS IP LAW FIRM, as a representative of PUMA SA, filed an opposition against the opposed mark on October 1, 2020, and argued the mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for famous Formstrip mark (see above left) in class 25.

In 1958 PUMA trademarked their “Formstrip” – an ever-expanding band of color that extended from the heel of the shoe, before diving into the soles along the sides. This particular shape was originally created to stabilize the foot inside the shoe, is now a typical PUMA trademark found on almost all PUMA shoes, and is used as a design element on our apparel products.

JPO Decision

By taking into consideration the produced evidence and substantial use of the cited mark on PUMA shoes that have annual sales exceeded JP15billion-yen and held a 4% market share in Japan for long years, the Opposition Board found “the Formstrip mark is highly distinctive and has acquired a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity as a source indicator of PUMA shoes among relevant consumers at the time of filing and registration of the opposed mark.

Besides, the Board found a high degree of similarity of marks by stating that both marks have the similar configuration of gradually becoming narrower and narrower with a gentle curve from a wide width. Although there are some differences in detail, such as the slight curvature at the narrow end, the opposed mark can be conceived of as a reversed version of the Formstrip.

In view of a close association between the goods in question and PUMA’s business, attention to be paid by relevant consumers, and the totality of circumstances and transactions in the relevant industry, the Board has a reasonable ground to believe that relevant consumers and traders are likely to confuse the source of the goods bearing the opposed mark from PUMA or an entity economically or systematically connected with PUMA.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to cancel the opposed mark entirely in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Trademark dispute: RIVER vs river

Posted on

In a recent decision, the JPO Appeal Board found TM Application no. 2021-5278 for the stylized “river” mark is dissimilar to earlier TM Reg no. 5704488 for the mark “RIVER” with design irrespective of designating the same consulting service in class 35.
[Appeal case no. 2021-17274, decision date: June 22, 2022]

TM Application 2021-5278

The dispute mark consists of the stylized word “river” depicted with the figurative element (see below right). The mark was filed in the name of Cultive, Inc for use in advertising and publicity services, business management analysis, or business consultancy service in class 35 on January 19, 2021.

The JPO examiner rejected the mark due to a conflict with earlier TM Reg no. 5704488 for the mark “RIVER” with a design (see above left) based on Article 4(1)(x) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to refrain from registering a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, an earlier registered mark.

The applicant filed an appeal on December 15, 2021, and argued dissimilarity of the mark.

JPO decision

Astonishingly, the JPO Appeal Board found “By virtue of figurative elements, the disputed mark as a whole gives rise to an impression of distinctive and unified design that evokes the image of flowing water and green leaves. Furthermore, the color composition also gives the impression that the mark is designed to evoke the image of flowing water and green leaves. If so, even though the mark may give rise to a sound and meaning of “river”, it is reasonable to believe that the source of the services is identified based on the impression created by the distinctive appearance of the mark rather than its sound and concept in the course of transactions.”

Likewise, the Board found “being that the literal portion “RIVER” would not be deemed a prominent portion of the cited mark, even if the cited mark can give rise to a sound and meaning of “RIVER”, it is reasonable to consider that relevant consumers distinguish the source of the services bearing the cited mark by means of overall impression, rather than it’s sound and concept.”

Based on the above findings, the Board concluded “it is obvious that there is a remarkable difference in the appearance of both marks. Even if the disputed mark and the cited mark are both pronounced “RIVER” and mean “river”, the similarity in sound and concept shall not outweigh the distinctiveness caused by a remarkable difference in appearance. Therefore, the disputed mark is unlikely to cause confusion and dissimilar to the cited mark.”

Consequently, the Board decided to disaffirm the examiner’s rejection and grant protection of the disputed mark.