Article 3(1)(vi)

LV Damier pattern is unenforceable TM right against traditional Japanese checkered pattern

2021年10月10日Advisory Opinion, Article 26(1)(vi), Article 28, Article 3(1)(vi), Damier, Hantei, Ichimatsu, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Louis Vuitton, Moyo, PatternAdvisory Opinion, Article 26(1)(vi), Article 28, Article 3(1)(vi), Device mark, Famous mark, Hantei, Inherent distinctiveness, Invalidation trial, Similarity of markMasaki MIKAMI

In an advisory opinion on trademark dispute over world-famous “Damier’s pattern”, the Japan Patent Office did not side with LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER. [Case no. 2020-695001, Gazette issued date: September 24,...

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...

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 Appeal1 CommentMasaki 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...

SWATCH Defeated in SWATCH vs iWATCH Trademark Dispute

2020年3月15日Apple Inc., Article 3(1)(iii), Article 3(1)(vi), Article 4(1)(xi), Article 4(1)(xv), Article 4(1)(xvi), Famous mark, invalidation trial, iWATCH, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Likelihood of confusion, Swatch, Trademark oppositionArticle 3(1)(iii), Article 3(1)(vi), Article 4(1)(xi), Article 4(1)(xv), Article 4(1)(xvi), Article 46, Composite mark, Famous mark, Invalidation trial, Likelihood of confusion, Similarity of mark, Trademark OppositionMasaki MIKAMI

The Trial Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an invalidation petition by Swiss watch giant, Swatch against TM Reg. no. 5849925 for word mark “iWATCH” owned by U.S. tech giant, Apple Inc.[Invalidation case...

MARKS IP LAW FIRM

Subscribe and Follow

LV Damier pattern is unenforceable TM right against traditional Japanese checkered pattern

Japan IP High Court Ruling on Distinctiveness of Position Mark

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

SWATCH Defeated in SWATCH vs iWATCH Trademark Dispute

Trademark race for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games – Episode 2

AI SCAN ROBO

Is Polaroid Photo Frame trademarked?

Our Facebook Page