タグ: similarity of service

COCO vs. KOKO

Posted on

In a recent administrative decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) found that the trademarks “CoCo” and “koko” are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900250, decided on March 25, 2024]

“koko”

A wordmark “koko” in standard character was applied for registration with the JPO by a Japanese individual in relation to services of class 35, 41 and 42 including educational and instruction services relating to arts, crafts, sports or general knowledge (cl. 41) on October 7, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-115511).

The JPO examiner issued an office action due to a conflict with TM Reg nos. 6327674 and 6327645 for the mark “KOKO HOTELS” and IR no. 950884-A for the mark “KOKO”.

The applicant was successful in a partial non-use cancellation action to IR no. 950884-A and argued in a response dissimilarity of the mark between “KOKO HOTELS” and “koko”.

Consequently, the examiner withdrew her rejection and granted protection of the mark “koko” on September 8, 2023. After registration (TM Reg no. 6737526), the mark was published for a post-grand opposition on September 28, 2023.

Trademark Opposition

The owner of earlier TM Reg no. 6167547 for wordmark “CoCo” filed a partial opposition on November 6, 2023, and claimed cancellation of the mark “koko” in relation to educational and instruction services relating to arts, crafts, sports or general knowledge of class 41 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.

The claimant argued that the opposed mark “koko” shall be deemed similar to “CoCo” since both marks have the same sound. Besides, the service “educational and instruction services relating to arts, crafts, sports or general knowledge” is similar to ballet school services in class 41 designated by the cited mark. Therefore, the opposed mark is subject to cancellation in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi).

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found the opposed mark “koko” is a coined word without any specific meaning. In the meantime, the cited mark “CoCo” has a meaning of the coconut palm as described in English dictionary.

The Board stated when comparing visual aspect of respective mark, overall impressions are different and unlikely to cause confusion because as they differ in the first and third letters “k” and “C” among four letters in total.

Although both marks share the same sound, the Board believes that they are sufficiently distinguishable in terms of concept and appearance regardless of similarity in respective service. Therefore, it is unlikely that relevant consumers will confuse the source of the service in question based on a global assessment of visual, phonetic, and conceptual factors.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire opposition and decided the opposed mark shall not be subject to Article 4(1)(xi).

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

Posted on

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 connection with medical services of class 44.
[Judicial case no. Reiwa 2(Gyo-ke)10086]

AZURE

A disputed mark is a wordmark “AZURE” in standard character. The mark filed by Willfarm Co., Ltd., a Japanese merchant on November 22, 2017, over cosmetics (cl. 3), pharmaceutical preparations, dietary supplements (cl. 5), retail or wholesale services for these goods (cl. 35), beauty salon, massage, providing medical information, health clinic services, rental of medical equipment, nutritional and dietetic consultancy, nursing home services (cl. 44). [TM application no. 2017-153742]

JPO decision

Initially, the JPO examiner refused the mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law by citing senior trademark registration no. 5454302 for word mark “AZULE” written in standard character. Among other things, the designated service of ‘providing medical information, health clinic services, rental of medical equipment’ in class 44 is deemed identical with that of the citation.

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

There is a 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) to the earlier mark and if there is a likelihood of confusion for the consumers.

The applicant sought to file an appeal against the examiner’s rejection and argued dissimilarity of both marks, however, the Appeal Board upheld the rejection for the same reason on June 8, 2020. [Appeal case no. 2020-1707]

To contest the administrative decision, the applicant filed a lawsuit to the IP Hight Court on July 21, 2020.

IP High Court ruling

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff argued the Board inappropriately found the “AZURE” mark would give rise to pronunciations of ‘æʒə’ and ‘a-zhə-reˈ, but it is precisely pronounced as ‘æʒə’ or ‘a-jü(ə)l’. Besides, the Board erroneously held “AZURE” is similar to “AZULE” in appearance. By virtue of the difference in the fourth letter “R” and “L”, relevant consumers of the medical services in question would easily distinguish them. If so, by taking account of slight conceptual association between the marks, the “AZURE” mark shall be considered dissimilar to “AZULE” from visual, aural, and conceptual points of view.

The Court upheld the Board decision by stating that relevant consumers at the sight of the disputed mark would pronounce the term “AZURE” as ‘æʒə’ or ‘a-zhə-reˈ since it is not a familiar foreign word among the general public in Japan. The cited mark “AZULE” also gives rise to a pronunciation of ‘a-zhə-leˈ. Therefore, both pronunciations are confusingly similar.

As for appearance, the court denied the plaintiff’s argument on the ground that the medical services in question are consumed not only by health care workers but also by the general public. As long as both terms are unfamiliar to the relevant consumers, a mere difference of one letter would be anything but sufficient for them to distinguish both marks.

Based on the foregoing, the Court dismissed the allegations entirely and ruled to reject the “AZURE” mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi).

To read a full text of the IP High Court decision (Japanese only), click here.

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

Posted on

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]

Disputed mark

The disputed mark prominently consists of “Maharaja” with stylization in red (see below).

The mark was filed by MAHARAJA.CO., LTD, on December 25, 2017, designating the services of providing Indian cuisine; providing alcoholic beverages, tea, coffee, or juices; providing hotel accommodation in class 43 [TM application no. 2017-168406].

The applicant allegedly opened the first “Maharaja” Indian restaurant at Shinjuku (Tokyo) in 1968 and now operates the “Maharaja” restaurants at some places in Japan.

JPO decision

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) rejected the disputed mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing the following senior registrations.

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

The JPO found that the stylized “Maharaja” term, due to its position, larger font, and color, dominates the perception of the disputed mark. If so, the disputed mark obviously gives rise to the same sound and meaning with the Citations. “MAHARAJA” means the head of one of the royal families that used to rule parts of India (Collins English Dictionary). Because of a high degree of phonetic and conceptual similarity, the mere difference in appearance is not sufficient to neutralize the similarity.

Besides, it is unquestionable that the disputed mark designates identical or similar services with the Citations.

For the reader’s reference, I had better explain that the Citations are respectively co-existing on similar services of providing Indian cuisine; providing alcoholic beverages in the same class. It is because these were filed just after the implementation of Servicemark in 1992 and the Trademark Law exceptionally secured for registration to protect the existing business status even if similar marks are filed by other entities on the condition that business owners apply for registration within a statutory period for the implementation.

To contest the JPO decision [Appeal case no. 2019-4961], the applicant appealed to the IP High Court on February 19, 2020.

IP High Court ruling

Applicant argued that since “MAHARAJA” has become a generic term in relation to Indian restaurant services, relevant consumers would find the appearance of the “MAHARAJA” mark rather than sound and meaning as a material clue to distinguish such restaurants. To bolster the argument, the applicant referred to the fact that 14 (fourteen) restaurants managed by an entity other than the applicant provide Indian foods using tradename “MAHARAJA” in Japan.

Given relevant consumers are accustomed to seeing the term “MAHARAJA” in close connection with Indian foods, it would likely be a generic term in relation to the service in question. If so, the aural and conceptual elements of generic term shall not be taken into consideration in assessing the similarity of the mark. The JPO errored in finding the background of the case appropriately.

The court, however, did deny the applicant’s allegation, stating that the on-line database of NTT telephone directory (town page) shows 2162 Indian restaurants exist in Japan as of 2017. It means more than 2,100 Indian restaurants use a tradename other than “MAHARAJA”. Under the circumstances, the court would not find a reasonable reason to believe “MAHARAJA” has become a generic term in relation to the service.

Even though there are plenty of Indian restaurants under the tradename of “MAHARAJA” in Japan as the applicant argues, the court would not be convinced if relevant consumers distinguish such restaurants simply by means of the visual elements of a mark (tradename). Because the court finds it commercial practice for shop owners to modify the font and color of mark (tradename) depending on its place and venue.

Based on the foregoing, the court decided that the JPO did not error in finding similarity of the mark and dismissed the appeal entirely.