Trademark Appeal

Japan IP High Court ruled “AZURE” is unregistrable due to “AZULE”

2021年1月17日Article 4(1)(xi), AZULE, AZURE, IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, similarity of mark, similarity of service, trademark appealArticle 4(1)(xi), IP High Court, Similarity of mark, Similarity of service, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

On December 23, 2020, the Japan IP High Court affirmed a decision of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) finding that the “AZURE” mark is similar to senior trademark registration no. 5454302 for word mark “AZULE” in...

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...

Less than 1.5% Success Rate for Getting Color Mark Registration in Japan

2020年11月15日Christian Louboutin, colormark, Hermes, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, non-traditional trademark, Red BullAcquired distinctiveness, Article 3(1)(iii), Article 3(2), Colormark, Inherent distinctiveness, New Trademark Law, New type of trademark, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

Japan opened the gate to Non-Traditional trademark, namely, color, sound, position, motion, hologram, in April 2015. It seems true that, beyond expectation, JPO has a significantly high hurdle to clear.

<!--...

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 on Distinctiveness of Position Mark

2020年9月12日Acquired distinctiveness, Article 3(1)(vi), Article 3(2), Cutting Comb, inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Position mark, Secondary meaning, YS ParkAcquired distinctiveness, Article 3(1)(vi), Article 3(2), Inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, New Trademark Law, New type of trademark, Position mark, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

On August 27, 2020, the Japan IP High Court ruled to affirm the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decision and rejected TM application no. 2016-34650 for a position mark consisting of fourteen open ellipses built-in grip section...

POLO RALPH LAUREN vs. US POLO ASSN

2020年8月9日Article 4(1)(xi), Article 4(1)(xv), Famous mark, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Likelihood of confusion, POLO, Ralph Lauren, similarity of mark, trademark appeal, US POLO ASSNAbbreviation, Article 4(1)(xi), Article 4(1)(xv), Composite mark, Famous mark, Likelihood of confusion, Similarity of goods, Similarity of mark, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

The Appeal Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) affirmed Examiner’s refusal to register the wordmark “U.S. POLO ASSN.” due to similarity to and a likelihood of confusion with earlier registered mark “POLO”...

Is “MAHARAJA” a generic term in relation to Indian restaurants?

2020年7月26日Article 4(1)(xi), generic term, IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, maharaja, similarity of mark, similarity of serviceArticle 4(1)(xi), Generic term, IP High Court, Refusal appeal, Similarity of mark, Similarity of service, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

On July 8, 2020, the Japan IP High Court affirmed the JPO’s rejection in a trademark dispute over the “MAHARAJA” mark for Indian restaurant services in class 43. [Judicial case no. Reiwa2(Gyo-ke)10022]

<!--...

Japan IP High Court Refuses Trademark Protection for Orange Color Mark

2020年7月12日Acquired distinctiveness, Article 3(1)(iii), Article 3(2), colormark, hitachi, inherent distinctiveness, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, non-traditional trademark, Secondary meaning, single colorAcquired distinctiveness, Article 3(1)(iii), Article 3(2), Colormark, Inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, New type of trademark, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

On 23 June 2020, the Japan IP High Court decided a case concerning a single color mark that was rejected for registration by the Appeal Board of the Japan Patent Office ("JPO").

<!-- wp:heading...

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...

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

2020年6月20日Apple Inc., Article 4(1)(xi), Composite mark, CORE MIL, IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Seiko, similarity of mark, Supreme Court, trademark appealAbbreviation, Article 4(1)(xi), Composite mark, compound mark, Inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, Refusal appeal, Similarity of mark, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

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...

MARKS IP LAW FIRM

Subscribe and Follow