In a trademark opposition disputing the similarity between “Samurai” and “Samouraï”, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the opposition filed by Parfums Samouraï SA against TM Reg no. 6384904 for a stylized word “Samurai” due to dissimilar to “Samouraï”.[Opposition case no. 2021-900283, Gazette issued date: April 28, 2022]
TM Reg no. 6384904 “Samurai”
The opposed mark, consisting of a stylized word n “Samurai” (see below), was applied with the JPO on September 29, 2020, for use on cosmetics, soaps, perfumes, fragrances, and other goods in class 3 by a Japanese business entity, Yugen Kaisha Life Products.
The JPO granted protection on February 12, 2021, and published for opposition on May 25, 2021.
Apparently, the applicant promotes soaps in the name of “SAMURAI SOAP” via the internet.
Opposition by Parfums Samouraï SA
Opponent, Parfums Samouraï SA, alleged the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(x) and (xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for the wordmark “Samouraï” in classes 3.
The opponent argued that they have been promoting perfumes and fragrances, hair wax, and softener bearing the “Samouraï” mark since 1997, and thus the opponent mark has acquired a certain degree of reputation in the industry of perfumes. Besides, the opposed mark has the same sound and meaning as the opponent mark, namely, a member of a powerful class of fighters in Japan’. If so, both marks shall be deemed similar even though there is a difference in appearance.
To my surprise, the JPO Opposition Board found that it is doubtful if the opposed mark consists of the term “Samurai” from appearance. The initial letter is true “S”. But subsequent letters are illegible. If so, the opposed mark would not give rise to any specific sound and meaning.
Given the opposed mark does not have a sound and meaning relating to “Samurai”, the Board can’t find a reasonable ground to believe a certain degree of similarity between the opposed mark and the opponent mark.
Based on the foregoing, the JPO found the opposed mark shall not be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(x) and (xi) and dismissed the opposition entirely.