タグ: Likelihood of confusion

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.

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.

ZARA vs AZRA

Posted on

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. 6638156 for word mark “AZRA” in classes 11, 20, 21, 24 and 27 by finding dissimilarity to and less likelihood of confusion with “ZARA”.

[Opposition case no. 2023-900013, decided on September 1, 2023]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark, consisting of a wordmark “AZRA” in standard character, was applied for registration in the name of STREAK Co., Ltd., a Japanese company offering bedding, pillows, pillow covers, cushions [furniture], mattresses, curtains and sleeping pads, on August 9, 2022, by designating various goods in classes 11, 20, 21, 24 and 27, and published for post-grant opposition on November 16, 2022, without confronting with office action from the JPO.

Screen capture from Rakuten

Opposition by Inditex

Opponent, INDITEX, one of the world’s largest fashion retailers and owner of the fashion brand “ZARA”, filed an opposition on January 14, 2023 before the lapse of a two-month statutory period and claimed opposed mark “AZRA” shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for word mark “ZARA”.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit from registering a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

INDITEX argued “AZRA” is similar to its own trademark “ZARA”, a worldwide famous fast-fashion brand, from visual, phonetic and conceptual points of view. Besides, the goods in question are identical.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits registering a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.

INDITEX argued that “ZARA” has acquired a remarkable reputation among relevant consumers and the close resemblance between the marks and goods, and thus relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive the goods bearing the opposed mark “AZRA” with “ZARA”.

Article 4(1)(xix) prohibits registering a trademark that is identical with, or similar to, other entity’s famous mark, if such trademark is aimed for unfair purposes, e.g. gaining unfair profits, or causing damage to the entity.

INDITEX argued the applicant must have filed the opposed mark aiming to gain unfair profits by the free-riding opponent famous trademark “ZARA”.

JPO decision

To my surprise, the JPO Opposition Board had a view that “ZARA” has not acquired a high degree of reputation and popularity among general consumers even though widely recognized among fashion conscious consumers by taking into consideration the produced evidence. The Board pointed a high number of followers on Facebook (31millions), Instagram (57millions) by itself would be insufficient and irrelevant to demonstrate a high degree of recognition among general consumers of the goods in question.

Besides, the Board found “AZRA” and “ZARA” are obviously dissimilar in appearance and pronunciation by stating that difference on the first and second letter and sound would be sufficiently distinguishable given both marks visually consist of four alphabets and aurally just two or three sounds. As for the concept, it is incomparable since either mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. Therefore, both marks are unlikely to cause confusion due to dissimilarity between the marks.

Since no evidence was shown by Inditex to support that the applicant filed the opposed mark for unfair purposes or causing damage to the opponent.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations of INDITEX and allowed “AZRA” to survive.

McDonald Unsuccessful in Trademark Opposition against “mac”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with McDonald in opposition against Japanese TM Reg no. 6575774 for stylized wordmark “mac” in class 35 due to dissimilarity to “Mc” and unlikelihood of confusion with McDonald.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900294, decided on August 15, 2023]

Opposed mark “mac”

The opposed mark, consisting of a stylized word “mac” (see below), was filed by Daiya Group Inc. for use on retail services or wholesale services for various goods including, meat, milk, carbonated drinks [refreshing beverages] and non-alcoholic fruit juice beverages, tea, coffee and cocoa in class 35 with the JPO on October 27, 2021.

The applicant has used the opposed mark as a tradename of their drug store “mac”.

Screen capture from Google map

The JPO granted protection of the opposed mark on June 22, 2022 and published it for post-grant opposition on June 30, 2022.

Opposition by McDonald

McDonald International Property Company Limited filed an opposition against the opposed mark on July 20, 2022 with the JPO and claimed cancellation of the opposed mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(x), (xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law based on earlier trademark registrations and various marks used in relation to their business.

McDonald argued that the mark “Mc” has been remarkably famous as a source indicator of the opponent and it gives rise to a same sound with the opposed mark “mac”. If so, relevant consumers would confuse the source of retail services or wholesale services for meat, milk, carbonated drinks [refreshing beverages] and non-alcoholic fruit juice beverages, tea, coffee and cocoa bearing the opposed mark with McDonald due to close resemblance of the marks and relatedness to food business.

JPO decision

The Opposition Board pointed out McDonald has been regularly using the mark “Mc” in a tight combination with other word. Regardless of the fact that consumers are accustomed to call McDonald as “MAC”, there is no evidence to show the opponent has used “MAC” in connection with their business.

By taking account of insufficient evidence to demonstrate substantial recognition of the cited marks, the Board has no reason to admit famousness of the mark “Mc” as a source indicator of McDonald.

In assessing the similarity of mark, the Board found the cited marks are aurally dissimilar to the opposed mark since they are pronounced as “emˈsiː” or “mækˈkæfˈeɪ” in its entirety. Besides, there is no ground to find visual and conceptual similarity of respective mark. If so, the Board believes the opposed mark is clearly dissimilar to the cited marks.

To the extent that there is insufficient evidence to support how the term “MAC” has played a significant role in indicating the source of McDonald, the Board held it unlikely that relevant consumers confuse the opposed mark with McDonald when used on the services in question.

Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed the opposition entirely and decided that the opposed mark “mac” shall remain valid as the status quo.

Trademark Dispute: Louis Vuitton vs Rui vuit

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) didn’t side with LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER in an opposition against TM Reg no. 6595438 for wordmark “Rui vuit” in class 25 due to dissimilarity to the “LOUIS VUITTON” mark.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900422, decided on August 14, 2023]

Rui vuit

Opposed mark, consisting of a word “Rui vuit” in standard character, was sought for registration by a Chinese citizen for use on clothing and sports shoes (cl.25) with the JPO on December 24, 2021.

The JPO examiner did not raise any refusal and granted protection of the mark on July 12, 2023. Subsequently, it was published for a post-grant opposition on August 10 ,2022.

Opposition by Louis Vuitton

On October 7, 2022, LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER filed an opposition with the JPO and claimed that the opposed mark shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier TM registrations for wordmark “LOUIS VUITTON” in classes 9, 14, 18, 24, 25, 35.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit the registration of a junior mark that is identical with, or similar to, any senior 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.

Louis Vuitton argued the opposed mark “Rui Vuit” shall be confusingly similar to “LOUIS VUITTON” especially in sound. A mere difference of sound “n” in the suffix would be trivial and give a similar impression as a whole to the extent that consumers are unable to sufficiently distinguish.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board denied similarity between “Rui vuit” and “LOUIS VUITTON” by stating:

“There is no doubt that both marks are visually distinguishable because respective mark represents a different word with different spellings.

Aurally, even if both sounds share the two initial sounds “lü-ˈē”, the overall sounds are easily distinguishable by virtue of difference in an “n” sound at the end.

Conceptually, the opposed mark does not have a specific conception. In the meantime, the cited mark gives rise to a meaning of famous fashion brand “Louis Vuitton”. If so, there is no similarity in concept.

Therefore, the Board has a reason to find a low degree of similarity between two marks, and even when used on the same or similar goods, there is no risk of confusion due to the dissimilarity of the marks.”

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

Shangri-La Unsuccessful in Trademark Opposition Over “Shangri-La Golf”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition claimed by Shangri-La Hotels against TM Reg no. 6610570 for the mark “Shangri-La-Golf” in class 35 due to dissimilarity between “Shangri-La” and “Shangri-La-Golf”.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900465, decided on July 26, 2023]

Opposed mark

A Japanese individual filed a stylized word mark “Shangri-La-Golf” (see below) for use on retail and wholesale services in relation to woven fabrics, beddings, clothing, footwear, and personal articles in class 35 with the JPO on June 22, 2020.

The JPO examiner rejected the mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for wordmark “SHANGRI-LA”.

However, as a result of the JPO Appeal Board’s decision that found dissimilar to “SHANGRI-LA”, the mark could be registered on September 6, 2022.

Opposition by Shangri-La Hotels

Shangri-La International Hotel Management Ltd filed an opposition against the opposed mark on November 11, 2022 and 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 due to a remarkable degree of recognition of the cited mark “Shangri-La” and close resemblance between the opposed mark and “Shangri-La”.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board questioned a remarkable degree of recognition of the cited mark among relevant public in Japan by stating that the produced evidence is insufficient to find such recognition objectively.

As for appearance, sound and meaning of the opposed mark, the Board found

“The opposed mark consists of “Shangri”, “La”, and “Golf” written in the same font and size, and tightly united by a hyphen (-). Visually, there is no reason to find respective element perse independently plays a role in source indicator of the opposed mark. Besides, the sound arising from the opposed mark as a whole can be pronounced easily.

Even if the term “Golf” has the meaning of a kind of ball game, it is reasonable to find that the term would not be recognized as directly indicating a descriptive meaning or specific quality of the services in question. Relevant consumers would see the opposed mark as a whole.

Therefore, the opposed mark shall be assessed in its entirety and give rise to a pronunciation of “Shangri-La-Golf” and no specific meaning.”

Based on the above finding, the Board decided the opposed mark “Shangri-La-Golf” is dissimilar to the cited mark “Shanri-La” because there is visual and phonetical distinction between the marks by virtue of the term “Golf” and the opposed mark does not give rise to a meaning related to ‘a remote usually idyllic hideaway’.

Accordingly, the Board found the opposition baseless and decided the opposed mark remains as the status quo.

HERMES Victory in trademark dispute against HAIRMES

Posted on

On July 26, 2023, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Hermes International in an invalidation trial against TM Reg no. 6275593 for the wordmark “HAIRMES” by finding the owner’s unjustified intention to free-ride and dilute the famous fashion brand “HERMES” and cause confusion.

[Invalidation case no. 2022-890082]

Disputed mark

Dog Diggin Designs, LLC applied a wordmark “HAIRMES” in standard character for use on beds for household pets; pillows for pets; pet cushions in class 20, and toys for pets in class 28 with the JPO on October 16, 2019. Apparently, the company promotes parody dog toys & dog beds, and other pet supplies.

https://www.dogdiggindesigns.com/

Hermes International filed a post-grant opposition against the disputed mark with the JPO on October 15, 2020, and argued the disputed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Trademark Law because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of the HERMES brand in the fashion industry and a high degree of similarity between “HAIRMES” and “HERMES” likely to cause confusion among relevant consumers in Japan.

The JPO Opposition Board decided to dismiss the opposition by finding unlikelihood of confusion due to a low degree of similarity between the marks. Click here.

Invalidation action by Hermes

Hermes International filed an invalidation action with the JPO based on the same grounds on October 18, 2022, and repeatedly argued the owner must have had an intention to imitate and free-ride on reputation and goodwill of the famous fashion brand “HERMES” by making use of similar trade dress with Hermes packaging color and design in addition to similar HAIRMES mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Invalidation Board admitted that “HERMES” has been widely recognized as a luxury fashion brand and source indicator of Hermes International.

In the assessment of similarity of mark, the Board found both marks are dissimilar in sound and concept. However, these marks give a similar visual impression by sharing the first letter “H” and the four letter “RMES” in the latter half of respective word, which catches the attention of consumers. If so, the Board has a reason to believe there is a certain degree of similarity between the marks.

The Board paid attention to a fact that the owner promotes pet beds and pet toys bearing similar color and decoration to the iconic Hermes packaging. Based on the circumstances, the Board had a view that presumably the owner, knowing that the HERMES mark has been widely recognized among consumers in Japan, must have had an intention to free-ride or dilute reputation on HERMES.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found relevant consumers are likely to confuse the source of pet beds and toys bearing the disputed mark with Hermes International in view of close association with fashion items as well, and decided to invalidate the disputed mark entirely.

Chrysler Wins Japan Trademark Invalidation Trial over “Jeeper”

Posted on

In a recent invalidation decision by the Japan Patent Office (JPO), Chrysler could finally achieve victory in a trademark dispute against “Jeeper”, regardless of their failed opposition in 2022.

[Invalidation case no. 2022-890064, decided on July 5, 2023]

Disputed 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).

Since the JPO admitted registration of the mark on November 17, 2020, and published it for a post-grant opposition on December 8, 2020, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA US) LLC filed an opposition on Jan 26, 2021.

In the opposition, FCA argued the mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law due to the remarkable reputation and popularity of “JEEP” as a source indicator of Chrysler vehicles and a high degree of similarity between the mark “Jeeper” and Chrysler “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.

However, on April 6, 2022, the JPO Opposition Board dismissed the opposition by questioning the famousness of the “JEEP” mark among relevant consumers of hand tools and finding a low degree of similarity between the two marks (Opposition case no. 2021-900035).

Invalidation action by FCA US LLC

To contest the Opposition Board decision, FCA US LLC filed an invalidation action with the JPO on July 28, 2022, and repeatedly argued the mark “Jeeper” shall be invalid due to its similarity to and the likelihood of confusion with “JEEP” when used on the hand tools in class 8.

The applicant did neither file an answer nor respond to the invalidation claims at all.

JPO Decision

The JPO Trial Board admitted a high degree of reputation and recognition of the claimant’s trademark “JEEP” in connection with small 4WD cars. Besides, based on the facts that the JEEP mark has been used on T-shirts, backpacks, bags, mugs, lunch boxes, carabiners, key chains, spray bottles, containers, and cooler boxes, the Board found the JEEP mark has even become famous among consumers of goods other than automobiles.

Based on the above findings, the Board held that, by taking account of the famousness of the JEEP mark as a source indicator of the claimant’s small 4WD cars, the literal portion of “Jeep” shall play a prominent role in indicating the source of the disputed mark. If so, the disputed mark gives rise to the sound of “Jeep” and the meaning of “the claimant’s famous small 4WD cars” accordingly.

Bearing this in mind, the Board compared the prominent portion “Jeep” of the disputed mark with the claimant’s mark “JEEP” and found a close resemblance of both marks as a whole.

In assessing the likelihood of confusion, the Board held small 4WD cars are remotely associated with hand tools in class 8, however, the Board paid attention to the fact that camp items bearing the JEEP mark e.g., backpacks, mugs, carabiners, cooler boxes, etc., are closely associated with the goods in question.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods in question bearing the disputed mark with the claimant and decided to invalidate the disputed mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv).