タグ: JAPAN PATENT OFFICE

Is Mr. Benjamin Brown around?

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s rejection to TM App no. 2022-13396 for word mark “Benjamin Brown” in classes 25 and 28 based on Article 4(1)(viii) of the Trademark Law by stating the mark would not be completely identical with a full name of the person “Benjamin Brown” alive.

[Appeal case no. 2023-4642, decided on November 9, 2023]

Benjamin Brown

Japanese company, Kabushiki Kaisha Pmang, filed trademark application for a word mark “Benjamin Brown” for use on various goods in class 25 and 28, especially golf wear, shoes and other gold items, with the JPO on February 7, 2022.

On December 19, 2022, the JPO examiner rejected the mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii) of the Japan Trademark Law since “Benjamin Brown” corresponds to a full name of person, an Israeli professor, researcher of Judaism and Jewish thought, lecturer at the Department of Jewish thought at Hebrew University.

Article 4(1)(viii)

Article 4(1)(viii) is a provision to prohibit registration of trademark that contains the representation or name of any person, famous pseudonym, professional name, or pen name of another person, or famous abbreviation thereof.

Notwithstanding the provision, the article is not applicable where the applicant could obtain a written consent from the person.

The Supreme Court of Japan ruled the article has aimed to protect personality rights of a living individual. Therefore, the article is not applicable when the person is no longer alive.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on March 20, 2023 and argued that registration of the mark “Benjamin Brown” in relation to goods of classes 25 and 28 would never cause damages of personal right to Israeli professor at Hebrew University.

JPO Appeal Board decision

The Appeal Board found that the applied mark “Benjamin Brown” shall be conceived as a coined word in its entirety. Relevant consumers are unlikely to associate it with a full name of particular person.

It is uncertain if “Benjamin Brown” is a full name of the professor or alive (!). Besides, the Board can’t find any reason to believe that his name has been highly recognized among consumers in Japan.

If so, the applied mark shall not be subject to Article 4(1)(viii). Since the examiner made an error in applying the article, it should be cancelled in due course, the Board decided.

JPO decision to trademark dissimilarity, Unbelievable or Believable?

Posted on

On November 9, 2023, the JPO Appeal Board reversed the examiner’s rejection to TM Application no. 2021-98849 for word mark “ADEAM/ICHI” by finding dissimilarity to earlier trademark registrations for word mark “ICHI”.
[Appeal case no. 2022-19409]

Earlier TM registrations “ICHI”

Following trademarks have been effectively registered since 2015 at the latest.

  • TM Reg no. 4736544 (soaps and detergent, incense, cosmetics in class 3)
  • TM Reg no. 5756228 (clothing, waistbands, belts [clothing] in class 25)
  • TM Reg no. 5991461 (bags and pouches, wallets, umbrella, walking sticks in class 18)

Junior mark “ADEAM/ICHI”

On August 6, 2021, FOXY Corporation filed a word mark consisting of “ADEAM” with larger roman-font and “ICHI” with smaller gothic-font in two lines (see below) for use on various goods and services in classes 3,14,16,18,24,25, and 35.

The JPO examiner rejected the applied mark due to a conflict with the earlier TM registrations for the mark “ICHI” owned by other entity based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law on September 6, 2022.

Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on December 1, 2022 and disputed dissimilarity of mark.

JPO Appeal Board decision

To my surprise, the Appeal Board found the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited marks and decided to cancel the examiner’s rejection by stating that:

Since the term “ICHI” of the applied mark is placed just beneath the term “ADEAM” in the middle about a quarter of the font size, from appearance, the term “ADEAM” occupies a large portion of the applied mark in its entirety. Thus, relevant consumers would have an impression that the term “ADEAMN” is considered as a dominant portion to identify a source of goods and service.

Besides, the term “ADEAM” is apparently a coined word. The term “ICHI” also does not give rise to a clear meaning. Therefore, conceptually there is no particular difference in assessing distinctiveness of respective term.

The Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers would focus only on the portion “ICHI” of the applied mark as a source indicator by separating the dominant element “ADEAM”.

If so, it shall not be permissible to compare the literal portion “ICHI” of the applied mark with the cited marks.

In this respect, the examiner made an error in applying Article 4(1)(xi).

Based on the foregoing, the Board granted registration of the applied mark

JPO decided trademark “MONO” dissimilar to “MONO+”

Posted on

In a trademark appeal disputing similarity between “MONO” and “MONO+”, the Appeal Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s rejection and found both marks dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion.

[Appeal case no. 2023-6307, decided on November 1, 2023]

MONO+

Onoya Inc. filed a mark “MONO+” (see below) for use on retail or wholesale services for furniture, joinery fittings, flowers [natural] and trees, kitchen equipment, cleaning tools and washing utensils in class 35 with the JPO on September 11, 2021.

The JPO examiner rejected the mark due to a conflict with earlier TM Reg no. 4533103 for wordmark “MONO” in standard character on goods of food wrapping plastic film for household purposes; garbage bags of paper or plastic for household purposes; hygienic hand tools of paper; towels of paper; table napkins of paper; hand towels of paper; handkerchiefs of paper in class 16 based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registration of a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, an earlier registered mark.

There is criterion that the examiner is checking when assessing the similarity between the marks:

  • visual similarity
  • aural similarity
  • conceptual similarity

and taking into account all these three aspects examiner makes a decision if a mark is similar (at least to some extent) with the earlier mark and if there is a likelihood of confusion for the consumers.

JPO Appeal Board decision

The Board found the applied mark “MONO+” gives rise to a sound of “mono-plus”, but it has no specific meaning in view of overall appearance and a meaning of respective word “MONO” and “+”.

As for the cited mark, the Board held the term “MONO” is not a foreign word familiar among relevant consumers in Japan. Thus, it has a sound of “mono”, but no specific meaning.

Comparing both marks, although they share the same appearance in that both contain the word “MONO”, they are sufficiently distinguishable because, by virtue of the presence or absence of the “+” symbol at the end, it is conceived both marks represent different words as a whole.  

Phonetically, they start with the same sound “mono”, but the overall tone and impression are different with or without the sound “plus” at the end. Due to the reason, both sounds can be distinguishable.

It is meaningless to compare the concept of both marks because neither does give rise to a specific meaning.

If so, from the totality of visual, aural, and conceptual points of view, the Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers are likely to confuse the source of the services in class 35 bearing the applied mark with the earlier mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found both marks are dissimilar regardless of similarity in goods and services, and decided to cancel the rejection and granted protection of the applied mark.

JPO rejection to Kubota Tractors’ Color Marks

Posted on

On October 31, 2023, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) rejected color marks for use on farm tractors by KUBOTA Corporation due to a lack of inherent and acquired distinctiveness in relation to farm tractors in class 12.

Kubota farm tractors

KUBOTA Corporation, established in 1890, a Japanese company manufacturing a wide range of agricultural machines, launched its farm tractors in 1960. According to the allegations, KUBOTA has used an orange color and black-and-orange colors on its farm tractors since 1980. In recent years, the tractors have occupied top market share of around 50% in Japan.

https://www.kubota.com/products/tractor/index.html

On December 26, 2018, KUBOTA applied for registration of color marks (see below) consisting of an orange color and color combinations (orange and black / orange, black and white) with the JPO in relation to farm tractors of class 12.

JPO rejection

The JPO examiner rejected the applications based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law and found every color mark does not satisfy requirements of Article 3(2) by stating that:

  1. Farm tractors with similar color have been distributed by several competitors. Orange color has been commonly used on other agricultural machinery. Under the circumstances, there is no distinctive character to apply and use the applied color(s) on body, front grill, wheels of farm tractors. If so, the color marks are deemed descriptive in relation to the designated goods and shall be rejected based on Article 3(1)(iii).
  2. The market research that targeted 589 consumers resulted in approx. 30% of the interviewees answering “KUBOTA”. The result is insufficient to admit the color(s) per se has acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator because more than 30% associated the mark with other competitors in spite that Kubota’s tractors have occupied top market share for long years.
  3. In view of the fact that orange corresponds to one of safety colors determined by the Japan Industrial Standards (JIS), there is a high demand to freely use the color in our society.
  4. Based on the foregoing, the examiner has no reason to believe the applied color marks have acquired a secondary meaning and played a role in identifying the source of Kubota’s farm tractors by itself.

Trademark dispute: HITACHI vs hitasi

Posted on

On October 16, 2023, the Japan Patent Office (JPO)dismissed an opposition claimed by Hitachi, Ltd. against TM Reg no. 6621366 for wordmark “hitasi” by finding dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with “Hitachi”.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900496]

Opposed mark

A Chinese individual filed a wordmark “hitasi” for use on glass, unworked or semi-worked, except building glass; mangers for animals; drinking troughs; toothbrushes, electric; nail brushes; comb cases; make-up brushes; gardening gloves; glass vials; decanters; vacuum bottles [insulated flasks]; oven mitts; place mats, not of paper or textile; drinking straws; bird baths; tanks [indoor aquaria]; utensils for household purposes in class 21 with the JPO on April 5, 2023.

The JPO granted protection of the opposed mark on September 29, 2022 and published it for a post-grant opposition on October 7, 2022.

Opposition by HITACHI

Hitachi, Ltd., founded in 1910, highly diversified Japanese manufacturing corporation that comprises more than 1,000 subsidiaries, including 335 overseas corporations filed an opposition on November 29, 2022 with the JPO and claimed the opposed mark shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law due to similarity to and likelihood of confusion with its famous house mark “Hitachi”.

To bolster their arguments, Hitachi cited the IP High Court ruling dated Jan 27, 2022 that admitted a likelihood of confusion between “HITACHI” and “hihachi” when used on air conditioners for industrial purposes; non-electric cooking heaters for household purposes; non-electric stoves for household purposes in class 11.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found a high degree of reputation and popularity of the cited mark “HITACHI” as a source indicator of the Hitachi Group and their business.

However, the JPO pointed out a low degree of similarity between the marks by stating that:

  1. From appearance, there is a difference in the letter “s” and “CH”. It would cause non-negligible effect on the overall visual impression of the marks which consist of relatively few letters (sir or seven characters). In this respect, two marks are unlikely to cause confusion visually.
  2. Aurally, there is a difference in the last sound of “si” and “chi”. It would cause non-negligible effect on the overall sound of the marks which consist of three syllables. The Board has a reason to believe that two marks are unlikely to cause confusion phonetically.
  3. From concept, both marks are unable to compare since the opposed mark does not have any specific meaning, whereas the cited mark gives rise to a meaning of “HITACHI” as a source indicator of the claimant.

Given a low degree of similarity of the marks, the Board said, it is unlikely that relevant consumers confuse the source of the goods in question bearing the opposed mark with Hitachi, Ltd. or other entity systematically or economically connected with the claimant even if the cited mark “HITACHI” has been famous trademark

Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed the entire allegations by Hitachi and decided validity of the opposed mark as the status quo.

ANYTIME FITNESS Unsuccessful Opposition against “anytime 24” mark in relation to fitness service

Posted on

On October 17, 2023, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition claimed by Anytime Fitness Franchisor LLC against TM Reg no. 6630608 for the mark “anytime 24” in class 41 due to dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion with “ANYTIME FITNESS”.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900541]

“anytime 24”

Opposed mark, consisting of “anytime”, “24” and a clock device (see below), was filed by ShinMaywa Industries, Ltd. for use on various services in classes 35, 37, 39 and 41, including sports instruction services; arranging, conducting and organization of seminars relating to sports; production of videotape file in the field of sports; providing electronic publications relating to sports on October 14, 2021.

The JPO granted protection of the “anytime 24” mark on October 19, 2022, and published it for a post-grant opposition on October 31, 2022.

Opposition by ANYTIME FITNESS

Anytime Fitness Franchisor LLC (AFF), an operator of the fastest-growing fitness club “ANYTIME FITNESS” franchise in the world, with more than 4 million members at more than 4,800 gyms on all seven continents, filed an opposition on December 29, 2022.

AFF argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (viii), (x), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law on the grounds that “ANYTIME FITNESS” has become famous among relevant consumers as a source indicator of the fitness gym opening 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and the term “ANYTIME” is a dominant portion of cited mark (TM Reg nos. 5284268 and 5742766) in connection with fitness-related services in class 41. If so, the consumers are likely to confuse the source of the opposed mark with AFF when used on fitness-related services because of close resemblance between the opposed mark and “ANYTIME FITNESS”.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found the opposed mark, from its configuration, gives rise to a pronunciation and meaning of “anytime” because the digit “24” is inherently descriptive.

In the meantime, the Board held the cited mark has a pronunciation of “ANYTIMIE FITNESS” and does not give rise to any specific meaning as a whole. Even if the word “FITNESS” lacks distinctiveness in relation to fitness-related services, the Board has a reason to believe the cited mark shall be assessed in its entirety by virtue of a tight combination with other elements.

When it comes to compare a dominant portion “anytime” of the opposed mark with “ANYTIME FITNESS”, the consumers are unlikely to confuse the source of two marks from visual, phonetical and conceptual points of view, the Board said.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO concluded dissimilarity of mark and unlikelihood of confusion, and decided to dismiss the opposition entirely.

Japan IP High Court ruled “athlete Chiffon” descriptive in relation to hotel and restaurant services.

Posted on

On October 12, 2023, the Japan IP High Court affirmed the JPO refusal decision to TM App no. 2021-93231 for word mark “athlete Chiffon” in class 43 due to a lack of distinctiveness.

[Court case no. Reiwa5(Gyo-ke)10038]

JPO refusal decision

Disputed mark, consisting of two words “athlete” and “Chiffon” in standard character, was filed for use of providing temporary accommodation; accommodation bureaux services; providing foods and beverages in class 43 with The Japan Patent Office (JPO) on July 27, 2021 (TM App no. 2021-93231).

The JPO examiner rejected the mark based on Article 3(1)(iii) and Article 4(1)(xvi) of the Japan Trademark Law by stating that relevant consumers at sight of the disputed mark would merely conceive of a restaurant to provide Chiffon cakes for athletes and it will cause misrepresentation of a particular quality of service when used on other services.

Applicant filed an appeal against the examiner’s rejection. However, the JPO Appeal Board sustained the examiner’s findings and decided to refuse the disputed mark on March 22, 2023.

Appeal to the IP High Court

On April 20, 2023, the applicant filed a lawsuit to dispute registrability of the disputed mark with the IP High Court and asked the court to annul the JPO decision based on the facts that the JPO has allowed registration of lots of trademarks containing the term “athlete”, but none of them restrict its usage of designated goods or services “for athletes”. Cake shops containing a term “Chiffon” in their trade name have even delt with cakes other than chiffon. If so, the JPO obviously made an error in denying distinctiveness of respective term “athlete” and “Chiffon”. Because of it, the JPO refusal decision shall be cancelled.

IP High Court decision

From the produced evidence, the IP High Court found that, in the industry of foods and beverages, terms such as “athlete cake” and “athlete pan cakes” are commonly used to indicate special goods and service for athletes. If so, relevant consumers and traders would consider a term consisting of “athlete” followed by generic word of goods or service as an indication to specify the target of the goods or service (for athletes). “Chiffon” is known in the industry as a term to indicate ‘food that is made light by adding the clear part of eggs that have been beaten’ and commonly used in conjunction with other descriptive term, e.g., “Choco chiffon”, “banana chiffon”, “Valentine chiffon”.

Under the circumstances, the court has a reason to believe that relevant consumers would consider the term “athlete Chiffon” as a mere descriptive indication of the restaurant to provide chiffon (cakes) for athletes when used in relation to the service in question.

Screen capture from “athlete Chiffron” facebook page

A fact that several cake shops containing a term “Chiffon” in their trade name have delt with cakes other than chiffon is irrelevant to the case given the consumers conceive of chiffon cake at sight of the term “athlete Chiffon” when used on restaurant service.

Based on the foregoing, the court held the JPO did not make any error in finding facts and applying trademark law and thus the disputed mark shall be unregistrable under Article 3(1)(iii) and 4(1)(xvi).

Trademark Opposition Case: “DROP” vs “THE DROP”

Posted on

In a trademark opposition disputing similarity between “DROP” and “THE DROP”, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to cancel TM Reg no. 6556243 for the mark “DROP” in class 35 due to similarity to IR no. 1258281 “THE DROP” in class 20 owned by Fritz Hansen A/S.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900306, decided on October 2, 2023]

Opposed mark “DROP”

Massdrop, Inc., a US e-commerce company, filed trademark application for word mark “DROP” in standard character for use on retail or wholesales services for various categories of goods including furniture in class 35 on October 9, 2018 (TM App no. 2018-126535).

The mark was registered on May 16, 2022 (TM Reg no. 6556243) and published for post-grant opposition on May 24, 2022.

Opposition by Fritz Hansen A/S

Fritz Hansen A/S, renowned Danish manufacturer of Scandinavian-style furniture, took a partial opposition action against the “DROP” mark on July 26, 2022 and claimed cancellation of the opposed mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law due to similarity to earlier IR no. 1258281 “THE DROP” for use on furniture in class 20 owned by the opponent.

Fitz Hasen argued “THE” is merely a definite article with no particular meaning for Japanese citizens with ordinary care. It commonly happens in Japan that consumers do not pay attention to definite article in the prefix where it is followed by other words. For example, “THE BEATLES” is called just as “BEATLES”. The Japanese title of the movie “The Lord of the Rings” does not include “THE”. Under the circumstance, relevant consumers would consider “DROP” as a prominent portion of the cited mark. Therefore, the opposed mark shall be similar to the cited mark. Besides, the goods “furniture” in class 20 is deemed similar to retail or wholesale services for furniture in class 35.

If so, the opposed mark should be canceled in relation to “retail or wholesale services for furniture” of class 35 under Article 4(1)(xi).

JPO decision

In the decision, the JPO Opposition Board mentioned “THE” is a definite article that functions to specify the following noun, however is usually not translated into Japanese. A basic English word “THE”, familiar among general public in Japan, is less distinctive as a source indicator per se. It is quite possible that relevant consumers and traders at the sight of the cited mark would highly focus on the term “DROP” of the cited mark.

Therefore, the Board has a reason to believe the cited mark gives rise to a pronunciation of “DROP” and a meaning ‘a small round-shaped amount of liquid’.

If so, the opposed mark has the same sound and concept with the cited mark.

A mere difference in appearance is insufficient to find dissimilarity of mark since the opposed mark consists of the same alphabets with “DROP” of the cited mark.

Also, the Board found “furniture” in class 20 shall be deemed similar to “retail or wholesale services for furniture” in class 35 by taking into consideration commercial channels, suppliers and consumers of respective goods and services.

Based on the foregoing, the Board sided with Fritz Hansen A/S and decided a partial cancellation of the opposed mark in relation to “retail or wholesale services for furniture”.

Trademark Opposition: JEEP vs JEIP321

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA US) LLC against TM Reg no. 6586965 for the wordmark “JEIP321” to be used on covers and accessories for cars in class 12 by finding dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with the “JEEP” mark.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900391, decided on September 28, 2023]

Opposed mark

The wordmark “JEIP321” was filed by a Chinese individual for use on steering wheels covers for automobiles, vehicle covers [shaped], upholstery foe vehicles, two-wheeled trolleys, windscreen wipers, anti-dazzle devices for vehicles, ashtrays for automobiles, rearview mirrors, mudguards, cigar lighters for automobiles in class 12 with the JPO on January 25, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-7763).

The JPO admitted registration on July 13, 2022, and published for opposition on July 22, 2022.

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 September 14, 2022.

FCA argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan 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 “JEIP321” 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.

Inter alia, FCA pointed out that the literal element “JEIP” shall be considered as a prominent portion of the opposed mark since numerals lack distinctiveness per se. If so, the opposed mark is confusingly similar to the “JEEP” mark from visual and phonetical points of view.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted a high degree of reputation and popularity of the “JEEP” mark in connection with four-wheeled automobiles.

In assessing the similarity of the mark, the Board found that a prominent portion of the opposed mark “JEIP” and the “JEEP” mark are less likely to cause confusion from visual, phonetical and conceptual points of view by stating that:

“From appearance, there is a difference in the third letter, “I” and “E” between “JEIP” and “JEEP”. The effect would be anything but negligible on the overall visual impression of both marks, since they are composed of only four characters.

Comparing the sound of “JEIP” with “JEEP”, there is a clear difference at the beginning, “dʒeɪ” and “dʒiː” It shall cause a significant distinction on the overall tone and impression in a short three-sound structure to the extent that relevant consumers would not mishear them when pronounced in unison.

Conceptually, both marks are 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.’”

Even though “JEEP” has become famous in relation to 4WD vehicles, the Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers would associate the goods in question bearing the opposed mark “JEIP321” with the opponent or any business entity systematically or economically connected with FCA because 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.

Failed Trademark Opposition over VW TYPE-2

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Volkswagen AG in an opposition against TM Reg no. 6365340 for device mark containing a depiction of a van-type red car by finding unlikelihood of confusion with Volkswagen Type-2.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900210, decided on September 14, 2023]

Opposed mark

Sur Andino SA, a Chilean wine grower and producer, filed a trademark application for device mark containing a depiction of a van-type red car (see below) to be used on wines in class 33 with the JPO on February 5, 2020.

The JPO granted protection of the opposed mark on March 9, 2021 and published is for a post-grant opposition on April 6, 2021.

Opposition by Volkswagen

On June 7, 2021, just before the lapse of a two-month statutory period counting from the publication date, Volkswagen AG filed an opposition and claimed the opposed mark shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Volkswagen argued a van-type red car depicted in the opposed mark resembles the VW Type 2 vehicles, aka Transporter, Bulli, Kombi, VW Bus that have been distributed worldwide for past six decades and a unique shape of the vehicles has played a significant role in identifying the origin of car. Because of it, the applicant must have had a bad faith to free-ride or dilute fame and prestige of the VW Type 2. Relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of wines bearing the opposed mark with VW.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board questioned whether the shape of the VW Type 2 per se has played a role in indicating the source from the produced evidence.

Given there is insufficient evidence to connect a van-type red car in the opposed mark with the VW Type 2, the Board found no reason to believe the applicant had a bad faith to free-ride or dilute prestige of the VW Type 2 by using the opposed mark on wines. If so, it is unlikely that relevant consumers confuse a source of wines bearing the opposed mark with Volkswagen.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the opposed mark shall not be canceled based on Article 4(1)(vii), (xv) and (xix), and thus dismissed entire allegations by Volkswagen.