JPO Rejected Colormark of Louboutin’s red soles

On June 7, 2022, the Appeal Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to reject a red color mark used on the soles of high heels by Christian Louboutin due to a lack of inherent and acquired distinctiveness.

[Appeal case no. 2019-29921]

Louboutin’s Red Soles

Fast on the heels of the introduction to register color marks in Japan, Christian Louboutin filed a trademark application for a color mark consisting of a red (Pantone 18-1663TP) colored in soles (see below) for use on high heels in class 25 on April 1, 2015 (TM App no. 2015-29921).

The JPO examiner refused the color mark based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law by stating red color has been commonly used on shoes to enhance the aesthetic appearance and attract consumers of high heels. Red-colored heels and shoes have been widely distributed before the launch of Louboutin shoes in 1996 in Japan and even now. Under the circumstance and trade practice, the examiner had no reason to believe the color mark perse has acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator of Louboutin among relevant consumers in Japan. If so, the mark shall not be registrable under Article 3(2).

Louboutin filed an appeal against the refusal and disputed the inherent and acquired distinctiveness of Louboutin’s red soles as a color mark on October 29, 2019.

To bolster the acquired distinctiveness of the red soles, Louboutin conducted an online brand awareness survey to target 3,149 females, aging from 20 to 50 and having a domicile in Tokyo, Osaka, or Nagoya where Louboutin have stores. The survey demonstrated that 43.35% of the interviewees conceived of Louboutin in the answer to an unaided open-ended question (Q1). 53.99% associated the color mark with Louboutin in the answer to a closed-ended question, where it mentioned Louboutin along with other close competitors (Q2). Louboutin argued, that from the survey, it is obvious that Louboutin’s red soles have acquired distinctiveness among relevant consumers and shall be registered under Article 3(2) even though lacking inherent distinctiveness.


JPO Appeal Board decision

The Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s findings and found the color mark perse lacks distinctiveness in relation to the goods in question by taking into account of fact that a lot of shoes with red-colored soles have been distributed by other shoemakers in Japan.

In the assessment of acquired distinctiveness, the Board pointed out a fact that more than half of the interviewees who live in the region where Louboutin stores are could not conceive of Louboutin in the answer to Q1. The survey was insufficient to admit acquired distinctiveness of the applied mark among relevant consumers nationwide, the Board found.

Even among the consumers who could associate the color mark with Louboutin, the Board had an opinion that as a matter of fact, they will be unable to distinguish Louboutin high heels from competitors’ shoes simply by means of red-colored soles without the aid of another source indicator, a wordmark “Louboutin”, used on the shoes given a lot of red-soled heels and shoes have been distributed by competitors as follows.

Besides, under the current trade practice, the Board considered it will inevitably cause a severe disorder and excessive restriction to competitors if it allows registration of a red color that has been freely used in the relevant industry to enhance the aesthetic appearance of shoes.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO concluded the color mark shall not be registrable under Article 3(2) as well.

Adidas Unsuccessful in Opposition over BOOST mark

On May 18, 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Adidas AG against Trademark Reg no. 6383132 for the wordmark “G-BOOST” by finding dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion with Adidas “BOOST”.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900273]

G-BOOST

UNI WORLD Co., Ltd. filed wordmark “G-BOOST” in standard character for use on ‘gloves for protection against accidents; clothing for protection against accidents; protective industrial shoes; dust masks’ in class 9 and ‘clothing; footwear; gloves; thermal gloves; sports shoes; sportswear; socks’ in class 25 on March 30, 2020.

The applicant promotes worker gloves bearing the mark “G-BOOST.”

The JPO granted protection of the mark on March 30, 2021, and published for opposition on May 25, 2021.


Opposition by Adidas

On July 14, 2021, Adidas AG filed an opposition and argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), and 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law due to a conflict with earlier trademark registrations pertinent to Adidas BOOST shoes, namely, TM Reg nos. 5212257 “BOOST” and 5941352 “ULTRABOOST” on shoes and sports shoes in class 25.

Allegedly, Adidas introduced Boost in 2013 as its revolutionary cushioning system, which provided the highest energy return in any running sneaker. The technology was designed to provide runners with soft cushioning and long-lasting energy that more rigid sneakers couldn’t.

Adidas argued the opposed mark “G-BOOST” is confusingly similar to “BOOST” because the term “BOOST” shall be a prominent portion of the opposed mark given an alphabetical letter “G” perse lacks distinctiveness in relation to the goods in question. Besides, “BOOST” has become famous as a source indicator of Adidas in relation to running shoes. If so, relevant consumers are likely to confuse the source of goods bearing the opposed mark with Adidas.


JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board did not admit a certain degree of reputation and popularity of the BOOST mark as a source indicator of Adidas running shoes among relevant consumers in Japan by stating that the opponent failed to produce sufficient evidence to disclose sales figures, market share, and advertising expenditures, media space and time of the goods bearing the BOOST mark even though the opponent produced evidence to demonstrate marketing campaign for the BOOST shoes in Japan.

In addition, the Board compared “G-BOOST” with “BOOST” as a whole and negated the similarity of the marks because of a clear distinction in appearance and sound.

Given the low degree of similarity of the mark and unproved famousness of the opponent mark, the Board has no reason to believe relevant consumers would confuse a source of the goods bearing the opposed mark with Adidas.

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

Canada Goose Failed Trademark Opposition Over Roundel Logo

On May 11, 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Canada Goose International AG against TM Reg no. 6367416 for a composite mark consisting of red, white, and blue roundel logo and literal elements by finding dissimilarity to and the unlikelihood of confusion with Canada Goose roundel logo.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900228]

Opposed mark

The opposed mark consists of a silhouette of an island or region in white placed right at the center of the emblem, a navy field with twelve red lines radiating from the center, and a wide rounded white frame with the text “KITAKYU GOODS” (top) and “NORTH NINE PROGRAM” (bottom) and five five-pointed-start-like devices (on each side of the frame) in red (see below left).

A Japanese business entity applied for use on seals and stickers [stationery] in class 16 and ornamental adhesive patches for jackets and brassards in class 26 with the JPO on June 29, 2020.

The JPO examiner granted protection of the opposed mark on March 3, 2021, and published for opposition on April 13, 2021.


Opposition by Canada Goose

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Canada Goose International AG filed an opposition against the opposed mark on June 14, 2021.

Canada Goose argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of earlier trademark registrations for the Canada Goose Roundel Logo (see above right) in relation to apparels and a close resemblance between the opposed mark and the opponent mark by using “confusingly similar” red, white, and blue logo patch.


JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board did not find a high degree of reputation and popularity of the Canada Goose Roundel Logo as a source indicator of the opponent among relevant consumers in Japan by stating that the opponent failed to produce evidence pertinent to the sales and advertisement of goods bearing the opponent logo in Japan even though the Canada Goose ranked fourth for a must-buy down jacket in 2021.

From the totality of the evidence, the Board had no choice but to question if the opponent mark has become famous among relevant consumers in Japan as well as Canada, and other countries.

Besides, the Board negated similarity between the marks by virtue of visual distinctions caused by (i) a land-like device depicted at the center and (ii) text and devices placed in the rounded frame. Due to the distinction, both marks give rise to a dissimilar sound. Conceptually, both marks are incomparable since either mark does not have any specific meaning.

Given the low degree of similarity of the mark and unproved famousness of the opponent mark, the Board has no reason to believe relevant consumers would confuse a source of the goods bearing the opposed mark with Canada Goose.

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

Chrysler loses trademark opposition against “JEEPER” in Japan

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA US) LLC against TM Reg no. 6317667 for the wordmark “Jeeper” to be used on hand tools in class 8 by finding the unlikelihood of confusion with “JEEP” vehicles.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900035, Gazette issued date: April 28, 2022]

Opposed mark

The wordmark “Jeeper” was filed by a Japanese individual for use on various hand tools in class 8 with the JPO on January 27, 2020 (TM App no. 2020-8907).

The JPO admitted registration on November 17, 2020, and published for opposition on December 8, 2020.


Opposition by FCA US LLC

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, FCA US LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on January 26, 2021.

FCA argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of the JEEP mark as a source indicator of Chrysler vehicles and a high degree of similarity between the opposed mark “Jeeper” and the opponent’s famous earlier registered mark “JEEP.”

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.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entities’ well-known goods or services.


JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted a certain degree of reputation and popularity of the opponent trademark “JEEP” in connection with automobiles. However, the Board questioned if relevant consumers of hand tools have the same perception.

In assessing the similarity of the mark, the Board held that “Jeeper” and “JEEP” are less likely to cause confusion from visual and phonetical points of view. Conceptually, both marks are distinctively dissimilar because the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. In the meantime, the opponent mark “JEEP” has a meaning of ‘Jeep brand 4WD vehicles.’

Given that “JEEP” has not become famous in relation to the hand tools in question, the Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers would associate the goods bearing the mark “Jeeper” with the opponent or any business entity systematically or economically connected with Chrysler in view of a low degree of similarity between the marks.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found the opposed mark shall not be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv), and decided to dismiss the entire opposition.

Update of Colormark in Japan – Who awarded the 9th registration?

On March 25, 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) granted protection of a color mark that has been used on the package of the first and a long-selling Japanese instant ramen “Nissin Chicken Ramen”. It is the 9th case for JPO to admit registration since opening the gate to color mark in April 2015.


Nissin Chicken Ramen

In 1958, NISSIN FOODS founder Momofuku Ando invented the world’s first instant noodles: Chicken Ramen, paired with a rich broth made of chicken and vegetables.

Nissin Chicken Ramen is a long-selling Japanese instant ramen loved by many generations and considered the world’s first instant noodles. According to the company’s release, more than 5 billion packages of Chicken Ramen had been sold.


Color mark on Package

The JPO opened the gate to Non-Traditional trademarks, namely, color, sound, position, motion, and hologram, in April 2015.

On July 12, 2018, Nissin Foods sought for registration of color combination on the Chicken Ramen package on instant noodles in class 30.

JPO examiner raised his objection because of a lack of distinctiveness based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law. However, the examiner eventually granted protection by finding acquired distinctiveness of the color mark (TM Reg no. 6534071).


Low Success rate -1.6%

563 color marks have participated in a race for trademark registration at the JPO as of now (May 14, 2022). 9 color marks could manage to award registration.

It is noteworthy that none of them is a mark consisting of a single color.


A previous post relating to colormark is accessible from here.

Dropbox Unsuccessful in Trademark Opposition over Open Box Logo

On April 7, 2022, the Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed a trademark opposition filed by Dropbox, Incorporated against TM Reg no. 6385226 for an open box device mark due to dissimilar to the Dropbox logo.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900281]

TM Reg no. 6385226

The opposed mark, consisting of an open box device mark depicted in a white circle and green outline (see below), was applied with the JPO on April 8, 2020, for use on computer application software; downloadable computer programs; downloadable image files via internet in class 9 and computer software design; computer programming; providing computer programs on data networks; rental of SNS server memory space in class 42 by Jiraffe Inc.

The JPO granted protection on April 6, 2021, and published for opposition on May 25, 2021.


Opposition by Dropbox

Opponent, Dropbox, Incorporated alleged the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(x), (xi), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for the Dropbox “open box” device in classes 9, 38, and 42.

Dropbox argued, that the basic overall configuration of the open box looks almost identical to the opponent mark. Because of it, both marks give rise to the same sound and concept. Besides, the opponent mark has acquired a certain degree of popularity and reputation as a source indicator of Dropbox. If so, relevant consumers would confuse the source of goods and services bearing the opposed mark with Dropbox due to a high degree of similarity of the marks.


JPO decision

At the outset, the JPO Opposition Board did not admit a substantial degree of reputation and popularity of the opponent mark by stating that sufficient evidence was not produced by the opponent for the Board to convince such reputation.

The Board found both the opposed mark and opponent mark would not give rise to any specific sound and meaning from the overall configuration regardless of finding that the respective box device looks like an “open box”.

In assessing the similarity of the marks, the Board did not directly compare the resemblance between open boxes. Instead, by means of overall comparison, the Board considered both marks are visually distinguishable due to the difference in color and a white circle and green outline. Being that there is no clue to find similarities in sound and concept, the Board has no reason to believe both marks are likely to cause confusion from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO found the entire allegations of Dropbox groundless and dismissed the opposition accordingly.

Failed Opposition against “Zara Sube Mist” by ZARA

On March 25, 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (INDITEX), owner of the fashion brand “ZARA” against trademark registration no. 6357258 for word mark “Zara Sube Mist” in class 3 by finding dissimilarity to and less likelihood of confusion with “ZARA”.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900193]

Zara Sube Mist

The opposed mark, consisting of three words, “Zara”, “Sube”, and “Mist” in standard character, was applied for registration by IBI Inc. to be used on cosmetics in class 3 on January 30, 2020.

The JPO granted protection on February 16, 2021, and published for opposition on March 23, 2021.

The applicant is using the opposed mark on skin lotions. Click here.

It should be noted “zara zara” is a usual term to represent the condition of ‘rough skin’ in Japanese. Likewise, “sube sube” is often used to represent the condition of ‘smooth skin’. Because of it, we would conceive of skin conditions from the term “Zara Sube.”


Opposition by Inditex

Opponent, INDITEX, one of the world’s largest fashion retailers and owner of the fashion brand “ZARA”, claimed the opposed mark “Zara Sube Mist” shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier IR no. 973064 for word mark “ZARA” in relation with cosmetics of class 3.

INDITEX argued, that given “ZARA” has acquired a remarkable reputation, relevant consumers of the goods in question are likely to see the literal element “Zara” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark and thus confuse or misconceive the opposed mark with “ZARA”.


JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that “ZARA” has become famous among relevant consumers and traders as a source indicator of the opponent in connection with clothing.

In the meantime, the Board questioned if the opponent mark “ZARA” has acquired a certain degree of reputation and popularity in relation to cosmetics from the produced evidence.

The Board found the consumers would see the opposed mark in its entirety due to a tight combination of three words and a non-redundant sound of ‘zara-sube-mist’. Being that “ZARA” failed to prove a certain degree of reputation and popularity as a source indicator of cosmetics, the Board has a reason to believe that relevant consumers would not consider the term “Zara” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark. If so, the opposed mark just gives rise to a pronunciation of ‘zara-sube-mist’ and no specific meaning.

Based on the above findings, the Board held “Zara Sube Mist” and “ZARA” are obviously dissimilar from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view.

If so, the opposed mark “Zara Sube Mist” is unlikely to cause confusion with “ZARA” by virtue of a low degree of similarity and remote association between apparel and cosmetics even though “ZARA” has been famous for apparel brand and coined word.

In a conclusion, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations of INDITEX and allowed “Zara Sube Mist” to survive.

Trademark Parody case: Champion Defeated by Nyanpion

On March 16, 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC against TM Reg no. 6368388 for the mark “Nyanpion” with a device due to dissimilarity to and the unlikelihood of confusion with the famous apparel brand “Champion.”

[Opposition case no. 2021-900230]

Opposed mark

A Japanese individual applied a composite mark consisting of a stylized word “Nyanpion” and a cat device (see below) for use on apparel, headgear, footwear, sports shoes, and sportswear in class 25 with the JPO on August 25, 2020.

The JPO examiner granted protection of the opposed mark on January 29, 2021, and published for opposition on April 13, 2021.

T-shirts, sweats, hoodies, and tote bags bearing the Nyanpion mark have been promoted for sale with a catchword of “Champion” parody.

I should note that “Nyan” is the sound cats make in Japan. Because of it, “Nyanpion” easily reminds us of a combination of cat sounds and “Champion”.


Opposition by Champion

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on June 14, 2021.

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 because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of the Champion brand in relation to apparels and a high degree of similarity between the opposed mark and its owned trademark registrations (see below) to the extent that relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods in question bearing the opposed mark with “Champion”.


JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that the “Champion” mark 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, the difference in the prefix of literal elements, “Nyanpion” and “Champion” would suffice for relevant consumers to distinguish them. The figurative element of the opposed mark represents a cat’s face. The opponent device mark gives rise to an impression of a letter “C”. If so, both marks are sufficiently distinguishable in appearance.

Phonetically, “Nyanpion” is easily distinguishable from “Champion” because of the difference in the first sound given both marks just consist of five sounds respectively.

Conceptually, the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. Meanwhile, the opponent mark has a meaning of someone or something, especially a person or animal, that has beaten all other competitors in competition and ‘famous apparel brand.’ If so, both marks are dissimilar in concept.

By virtue of a low degree of similarity, the Board found relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse or associate the source of the goods bearing the “Nyanpion” mark with “Champion” and any 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.

Louboutin Unsuccessful in Litigation over Red Soles

On March 11, 2022, the Tokyo District Court dismissed allegations by Christian Louboutin who claimed red-soled shoes distributed by the defendant infringe their intellectual property right and are liable for damages under the Unfair Competition Prevention Law.

[Judicial case no. H31(Wa)11108]

Louboutin’s red soles

Christian Louboutin SAS alleged heels and pumps with red-lacquered leather soles (Pantone 18-1663) perse (see below) have been famous as a source indicator of Louboutin shoes as a result of substantial use for more than two decades in Japan.

To demonstrate the remarkable reputation of the position mark with a single color, Louboutin produced a lot of evidence. Japanese subsidiary generated sales of JPY3,305 million for Ladies’ shoes in 2016. More than 70% of the shoes are heels and pumps with red-colored soles. The company has yearly spent JPY15 million and more on advertisements in Japan. According to the interview conducted in October 2020, 65% of the 3,149 interviewees (females aging from 20 to 50) answered Louboutin when shown the above image.


Disputed goods

Allegedly, Eizo Collection Co., Ltd., a Japanese business entity, began to distribute ladies’ shoes with red-colored rubber soles bearing the wordmark “EIZO” for JPY17,000 from May 2018 (see below).

In the litigation, Louboutin sought a permanent injunction, disposal of the disputed shoes, and damages in the amount of JPY4,208,000.

It should note that Louboutin’s attempt to register the position mark representing ladies’ heels with red-colored soles in 2015 has been pending by the Japan Patent Office due to a lack of inherent and acquired distinctiveness as of now.


Court decision

The Tokyo District Court denied a certain degree of reputation and popularity of the red soles to indicate Louboutin shoes by stating:

  1. Red color has been commonly used on shoes to enhance the aesthetic appearance and attract consumers. Ladies’ heels with red-colored soles have been widely distributed even before the launch of Louboutin shoes in Japan.
  2. Under the practice in commerce, two decades and advertisement would be insufficient to find Louboutin’s red soles have played a role in the source indicator in Japan.

Besides, the court found the unlikelihood of confusion between Louboutin and the defendant’s shoes on the grounds that:

  • Given Louboutin’s shoes are known for high-end heels that cost JPY80,000 and more, relevant consumers would pay attention to selecting and purchasing suitable goods. Being that Louboutin’s shoes has the stylized mark “Louboutin” on soles as well, it is unlikely that relevant consumers connect the defendant’s shoes bearing the wordmark “EIZO” on soles with Louboutin.
  • Because of the difference in respective materials on soles (lacquered leather for Louboutin, and rubber for defendant shoes), there exists a distinction in texture and luster to the extent that relevant consumers can easily distinguish the quality and source of respective goods.
  • The interview targeted consumers who have purchased high-end goods and famous brands. Since the interview failed to show the defendant’s shoes to the interviewees, it would be irrelevant to prove a likelihood of confusion between the shoes.

Based on the foregoing, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s allegations under the Unfair Competition Prevention Law and did not side with Louboutin.

COCOGOLF vs COCO

On February 28, 2022, the Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s rejection and decided to register the applied mark “COCOGOLF” in classes 25 and 28 by finding dissimilarity to Chanel’s earlier registration for the mark “COCO.”


COCOGOLF

The applied mark consists of the word “COCOGOLF” (see below).

Applicant, E-COME GROUP Co., Ltd., filed it for use on various goods in classes 18, 25, and 28 on November 27, 2022. [TM Application no. 2020-146448]

Confronting office action from the JPO, the applicant divided the application and filed a new trademark application on goods of ‘sports shoes; sportswear’ in class 25 and ‘golf bags; golf equipment in class 28 on July 2, 2021. [TM Application no. 2021-82743]

The JPO examiner rejected the mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law on October 12, 2021.

The examiner cited earlier trademark registration nos. #6169514 (cl. 25, 35) and IR699469 (cl. 25) for the wordmark “COCO” owned by Chanel SARL, and found the applied mark “COCOGOLF” is confusingly similar to the cited mark “COCO” when used on the designated goods in class 25 and 28.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on November 17, 2021, and argued for the dissimilarity in the marks.


JPO Decision

The Appeal Board found the applied mark shall be assessed in its entirety by stating:

  1. Visually, there is no reason to consider the term “COCO” as a prominent portion of the applied mark because of its configuration.
  2. The applied mark gives rise to the pronunciation of ‘coco-golf’. The whole sound can be pronounced easily in a breach.
  3. The Board has no reason to believe the term “GOLF” perse has been used to represent specific goods in relation to the goods in question.
  4. If so, relevant consumers at the sight of sports shoes, sportswear, golf bags, and golf equipment bearing the applied mark would see it as a whole, and are unlikely to consider the term “COCO” as a prominent source indicator of the applied mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found the examiner erred in finding “COCO” to be separable from “GOLF.” Consequently, the Board held the applied mark is dissimilar to the mark “COCO” and granted “COCOGOLF” registration.

[Appeal case no. 2021-15790]