カテゴリー: 2024

JPO decision: “PENINSULA HILLS” unlikely to cause confusion with “The Peninsula”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s refusal and granted registration of the word mark “PENINSULA HILLS” written in Japanese Katakana characters in Classes 36 and 43, finding no likelihood of confusion with a world-renowned hotel “The Peninsula”.
[Appeal case no. 2023-4720, decided on July 25, 2024]

PENINSULA HILLS

CF-1 Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application with the JPO on January 7, 2022 for the word mark “PENINSULA HILLS” written in Japanese Katakana characters (see below) for use in, among other things, real estate services in Class 36 and hotel and restaurant services in Class 43 (TM App No. 2022-1353).

The Peninsula

The JPO examiner decided to reject the applied mark “PENINSULA HILLS” by finding a likelihood of confusion with a world-renowned hotel “The Peninsula” because the mark contains the term “PENINSULA”, which is highly recognized by consumers as an abbreviation of the luxury hotel, based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law on December 6, 2022.

To contest the rejection, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection with the JPO on March 3, 2023.

JPO Appeal Board decision

To my surprise, the JPO Appeal Board questioned a high degree of recognition of the hotel “The Peninsula” by stating that:

“The Peninsula Tokyo” is the only hotel commercially operated by The Hongkong Shanghai Hotels, Limited in Japan. If so, the number of users is quite limited. Even if there are hotels with the name “The Peninsula” operated by the company in foreign countries and then Japanese travelers may stay the hotels, it is insufficient to find a high recognition of the hotel to average consumers since there is no objective data regarding the number of users, its sales, and the ratio of Japanese users and sales.

Therefore, the Board has no reason to believe that the term “PENINSULA” is widely recognized by consumers in Japan as an abbreviation for the hotels managed by the company.

In a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the Board found the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited mark “The Peninsula”.

The applied mark and the cited mark differ significantly in appearance due to the difference in the number of letters and the presence of the word “HILLS”. Furthermore, the difference in the number of syllables and the presence of the sound “HILLS” make the pronunciations easily distinguishable. Therefore, the relevant consumers and traders will be able to distinguish between the two marks are will consider them to be dissimilar because of the clear difference in the overall impression.

Given no high recognition of the hotel “The Peninsula” and low degree of similarity to the applied mark, the Board finds no reason to believe the applied mark may cause confusion with the cited mark when used in relation to the services in question.

In view of the foregoing, the Board held that the examiner had errored in applying Article 4(1)(xv), and decided to grant protection to the applied mark.

TRILITH STUDIOS vs TRILITH

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) declared the invalidation of TM Reg no. 6371496 “TRILITH” due to similarity with earlier IR no. 1534597 “TRILITH STUDIOS” owned by Trilith IP Holdings, LLC.
[Invalidation case no. 2022-890066, decide on July 8, 2024]

TRILITH

On January 5, 2021, GAIAMOND Inc., a Japanese company, filed an application for registration of wordmark “TRILITH” (‘the contested mark’) with the JPO (TM app no. 2021-745), designating, inter alia, “game trading cards; toys” in Class 28.

Immediately after the filing, the applicant requested an accelerated examination based on the fact the company uses the contested mark in relation to display frame for game trading cards.

https://ginzo-shop.com/items/62a42b262bf901166cb94227

Accordingly, the JPO examiner granted protection of the contested mark in two months on March 15, 2021 (TM Reg no. 6371496).

TRILITH STUDIOS

Trilith IP Holdings, LLC, a holder of IR no. 1534597 for word mark “TRILITH STUDIOS” that is known as one of the largest purpose-built movie studios in North America and home to blockbuster films and independent shows like Avengers: Endgame, Zombieland: Double Tap, and Moon and Me, filed a notice of opposition to registration of the contested mark in respect of game trading cards and toys with the JPO on June 18, 2021. The ground relied on in support of the opposition was that set out in Article 8(1) of the Trademark Law.

Article 8(1) is a provision to prohibit registration of a junior mark that is identical with, or similar to any earlier applied mark which is pending before the substantive examination at the time of registration of the junior mark in accordance with the “first-to-file” principle.

The opposition applicant argued that the contested mark “TRILITH” is not eligible for registration under Article 8(1) because of similarity to earlier IR no. 1534597 “TRILITH STUDIOS”, and the goods in question is deemed similar to “downloadable video game software; recorded video game software” in Class 9 designated under the cited mark.

However, the JPO Opposition Board dismissed the opposition on the ground that there is no similarity between the mark “TRILITH STUDIOS” and “TRILITH” on April 7, 2022 (Opposition case no. 2021-900241).

On August 10, 2022, MARKS IP LAW FIRM, on behalf of Trilith IP Holdings, LLC, filed an application for a declaration of invalidity to the contested mark with the JPO based on the same ground.

To bolster the arguments, the invalidity applicant presented evidence to show a low degree of distinctiveness of the word “STUDIOS” in connection with the goods in question. Bearing in mind that the term “TRILITH” is a coined word unfamiliar to the relevant consumers in Japan, it is obvious that the term “TRILITH” is dominant in the cited mark. If so, the contested mark should be invalidated in contravention of Article 8(1).

JPO decision

Noticeably, the Invalidation Board found that the literal element “TRILITH” to be dominant in the cited mark by stating that:

 A space separates the terms “TRILITH” and “STUDIOS.” The word “STUDIOS” is commonly known as a term to indicate ” a film or video production facility.” or “workshop for painters or cameramen, recording room for radio or television, recording studio for music.” Therefore, the cited mark is easily recognizable as a combination of the terms “TRILITH” and “STUDIOS.

In light of the fact that the term “GAME STUDIOS” has been generally used to indicate workplaces where games are created in the relevant industry, the word “STUDIOS” would be less distinctive in connection with the cited goods.

Meanwhile, the term “TRILITH” is a coined and highly distinctive word with no specific meaning. Accordingly, the Board has a reason to believe that the term to be dominant in the cited mark.

Based on the above finding, the Board compared the dominant portion of the cited mark with the contested mark and found that both marks are similar from visual and aural points of view in spite that a conceptual comparison is neutral as neither the contested mark nor the cited mark have any clear meaning.

Given that the goods in question is similar to “downloadable video game software; recorded video game software” in Class 9 designated under the cited mark, the invalidation applicant is successful in proving the requirements of Article 8(1).

Consequently, in light of the foregoing, the Board decided to invalidate the contested mark in relation to “game trading cards; toys” in Class 28.

Cobra Golf Scores Win in an Attempt to Register Mark “MIM”

Posted on

In a recent decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) Appeal Board sided with Cobra Golf Incorporated, represented by MARKS IP LAW FIRM, and disaffirmed the examiner’s rejection by finding dissimilarity between TM Reg no. 6208087 and Cobra’s mark “MIM” for use on golf clubs.
[Appeal case nos. 2023-16540, decided on July 9, 2024]

Cobra Golf “MIM”

Cobra Golf Incorporated, one of the leasing US golf club and golf equipment manufacturer, applied for registration of wordmark “MIM” in standard character with the JPO on December 7, 2020 for use on golf clubs in class 28 (TM App no. 2020-151063).

Cobra Golf uses the mark on their golf irons produced with a new innovative “MIM” technology which stands for ‘Metal Injection Molding’.

The JPO examiner rejected the mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law due to a conflict with an earlier trademark registration no. 6208087 for a composite mark consisting of the word “MIZKAN MUSEUM” with a device that can be seen as the word “MIM” (see below) in class 21 on June 30, 2023.

Marks IP Law Firm, on behalf of Cobra Golf, filed an appeal with the JPO on September 29, 2023, arguing that the cited mark is dissimilar to the word mark “MIM” because the figurative element of the cited mark would not be considered as a word “MIM” due to its stylization, but rather as a design consisting of a vertical line in between two “M” letters representing an initial letter of “MIZKAN” and “MUSEUM” respectively.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board found that the cited mark would not give rise to a pronunciation of “MIM” from the figurative element by stating that:

There is a slight possibility that the building-like figures on the left and right sides of the upper part of the cited mark will be perceived as the letter “M” from appearance. However, the Board considers that the relevant consumers are unlikely to find so because of the considerable stylization. The vertical line between the letters, combined with the fact that it is of a shorter length than the letters, will also not be identified as the letter “I.”

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the upper part of the cited mark would never be immediately recognized as representing the word “MIM” as a whole. Rather, the relevant consumers would recognize it only as a representation of a design with no specific meaning in its entirety.

Given the upper part of the cited mark has neither sound nor meaning, both marks, when considered globally, are easily distinguishable from visual, phonetical and conceptual points of view and unlikely to cause confusion when used on goods in class 28.

Based on the foregoing, the Board held that the examiner errored in applying Article 4(1)(xi) and decided to grant registration of Cobra’s mark “MIM”.

Trademark dispute over Chandler Bats

Posted on

In a trademark opposition contesting the validity of the mark “CHANDLER,” the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the oppositions claimed by Group Authentic, LLC and David Chandler.
[Opposition case nos. 2023-900161, 2023-900212, and 2023-900213, decided on July 18, 2024]

Opposed mark

La Potencia LLC filed three trademark applications with the JPO on September 6, 2022 for the wordmark “CHANDLER”, “CHANDLER BATS,” and a composite mark consisting of the word “Chandler” in script with a “C” shaped design representing a bat knob inside for use on various goods and retail or wholesale services related to baseball in Classes 9, 18, 25, 28 and 35.

The marks were all granted for registration and published for post-grant opposition accordingly.

Opposition by David Chandler

Group Authentic, LLC and David Chandler jointly filed a trademark opposition against the marks before the lapse of two months from the publication date at the JPO.

In the opposition, they argued “Chandler” has been highly known in relation to baseball bats to indicate a name of David Chandler who has manufactured hundreds of models of baseball bats for Major League Baseball players since 2009. The opposing parties has no intention to give a consent for La Potencia LLC to register the opposed marks in Japan. Under the circumstance, the opposed mark shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii) and (viii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(vii) prohibits any mark likely to cause damage to the social and public interest and disrupt the order of fair competition from registration.

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.

The JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that the mere fact and documents regarding the USPTO’s rejection of US App Nos. 97313019, 97312938, and 97313467 for the opposed marks by the USPTO were insufficient to establish a high degree of popularity and reputation of the mark “Chandler” as an abbreviation of Mr. David Chandler.

Based on the above finding, the Board has no reason to believe a lack of the consent would cause damage to the social and public interest and disrupt the order of fair competition.

To the extent that insufficient evidence has been produced to establish that the mark “Chandler” is famous as an abbreviation of Mr. David Chandler, it is inadmissible to find that the opposed marks contain a famous abbreviation of a living person.

In light of the foregoing, the Board decided the opposed marks shall not be cancelled based on Article 4(1)(vii) and (viii), and dismissed the entire oppositions.

Trademark Opposition: FITBIT vs Fitbeing

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Google LLC in an opposition against TM Reg no. 6715471 for wordmark “Fitbeing” in class 14 by finding dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with “Fitbit” wearable devices.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900195, decided on June 28, 2024]

“Fitbeing”

Wordmark “Fiteing” was applied for registration in relation to “clocks and watches; watch bands and straps; stopwatches; watch cases [parts of watches]; clocks and watches, electric; chronometric instruments; presentation boxes for watches” in class 14 by a Chinese company with the JPO on January 4, 2023 (TM App no. 2023-172).

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action to the mark and granted protection on June 28, 2023. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on July 18, 2023.

Opposition by Google LLC

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Google LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on August 31, 2023.

Google argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for the wordmark “FITBIT” that has allegedly become famous as a source indication of Google’s wearable devices.

Google argued that due to the same spelling that starts with “FITB”, relevant consumers with an ordinary care would consider the opposed mark “Fitbeing” confusingly similar to the cited mark “FITBIT” from visual, aural and conceptual points of view.

By taking int consideration the high degree of reputation and popularity of the mark “FITBIT”, it is likely that the consumers would confuse a source of goods in question bearing the opposed mark with Google or their devices.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that, considering the evidence submitted, the mark “FITBIT” has not been widely recognized among the consumers to indicate Google’s wearable devices even if some of them may have known.

Secondly, the Board assessed the similarity of marks and states:

  • Comparing the marks “Fitbeing” and “FITBIT” visually, although they have the same initial letter “Fitb (FITB)”, there is a clear difference in the endings “ing” and “IT” and the number of letters is different from 8 to 6. Therefore, the two marks are visually different.
  • As regards pronunciation, although both marks have the same initial sound ‘fitbi’, they differ in the ending ‘-ing’ and ‘it’ and the number of sounds is not as long (8 and 6 sounds). This difference would make a meaningful difference in the overall pronunciation.
  • The conceptual comparison is not possible because both marks have no meaning.
  • Accordingly, the Board has reason to believe that both marks are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion, taking into account the overall consideration as well as the impressions, memories, associations of the consumers.

In light of the foregoing, the Board dismissed the entire opposition and granted status quo protection to the mark “Fitbeing” in class 14.

Guerlain Unsuccessful Opposition to “MITSOUKO” mark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Guerlain, a legendary French perfume house, against TM Reg no. 6734165 for wordmark “mitsouko” in class 44 due to unlikelihood of confusion with perfume “MITSOUKO” by Guerlain.
[Opposition case no. 2023-90025, decided on June 27, 2024]

“mitsouko”

Yugen Kaisha AMERICA, a Japanese business entity, filed a trademark application for wordmark “mitsouko” in standard character for use on “beauty salon services, barbershops, massage, dietary and nutritional guidance, therapy services, rental of apparatus and instruments for use in beauty salons or barbers’ shops, providing medical information, manicuring, hair implantation” in class 44 with the JPO on March 22, 2023 (TM App no. 2023-30416).

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action to the mark and granted protection on September 5, 2023. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on September 15, 2023.

Opposition by Guerlain

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Guerlain, a legendary French perfume house, filed an opposition against the opposed mark on November 13, 2023.

Guerlain argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits the registration of trademarks that are likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.

Guerlain contended that given the remarkable reputation and popularity of the perfume “MITSOUKO” by Guerlain and close association between perfume and the services in question, relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of services bearing the opposed mark with Guerlain.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that, considering the evidence submitted, the mark “MITSOUKO” may be recognized by persons having a deep knowledge of perfume, but there is a reasonable doubt whether the mark is widely known among relevant consumers to indicate the source of Guerlain perfume.

In addition, in view of the low degree of relatedness between beauty salon services, barbershops, massage, etc. and “perfume”, even if both marks are almost identical, it is unlikely that traders and consumers at the sight of the opposed mark used in relation to the service in question will associate or recall the cited mark, and consider a source of the services from an entity economically or systematically connected with Guerlain.

Therefore, the Board has no reason to believe the opposed mark shall be subject to Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

Even if the applicant has applied for the opposed mark with knowledge of Guerlain’s perfume “MITSOUKO”, the fact is insufficient to infer that the company has the purpose of making unfair profits or the purpose of causing harm to others. The submitted evidence does not reveal any fact to demonstrate a malicious intention by the applicant. If so, the opposed mark shall not be cancelled under Article 4(1)(xix).

Based on the above findings, the Board conclude that the opposition was without merit and thus granted protection to the opposed mark as the status quo.

Trademark Opposition: HUGO vs. Hugoo

Posted on

In a recent administrative decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by German luxury fashion house Hugo Boss against Japanese TM Reg no. 6706891 for stylized word mark “Hugoo” in class 18.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900185, decided on June 11, 2024]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark, filed on May 31, 2022, by GRIT Incorporated, consists of the stylized word “Hugoo” (see below). The goods sought for registration are bags, baby carriers, sling bags for carrying babies and infants in class 18. GRIT sells sling bags for carrying babies and infants via their website.

The JPO granted protection to the mark on May 12, 2023, and published it for post-grant opposition on June 21, 2023.

Opposition by Hugo Boss

HUGO BOSS Trademark Management GmbH & Co KG filed an opposition against the opposed mark on August 21, 2023, and claimed the opposed mark “Hugoo” shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing its owned earlier trademark registration nos. 2301695, 3265268, IR776148, IR1657111, IR1676995 for the mark “HUGO”.

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

HUGO BOSS argued that a mere difference on the 2nd letter “O” in the last is trivial from visual and phonetical points of view. Accordingly, the opposed mark “Hugoo” shall be considered similar to the cited mark “HUGO”. Besides, the goods in question are all similar to designated goods under the cited marks.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board denied similarity between “HUGO” and “Hugoo” by stating that:

There is a difference in the ending ‘oo’ or ‘O’. The difference has no small effect on the visual impression of the appearance of both marks, which are composed of five and four relatively short characters. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that both marks are clearly distinguishable in appearance.

From pronunciation, it is reasonable to conclude that both sounds are clearly audible and distinguishable since respective sound of both are clearly different.

Furthermore, both marks do not give rise to a specific meaning. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the conception of them.

Accordingly, both marks are distinguishable in appearance and sound, and incomparable in concept.

By making global assessment of the impression, memory and association of respective mark given to traders and consumers as a whole, the Board has reason to believe that both marks should be considered dissimilar without any possibility of confusion.

In the event that both marks are dissimilar, the opposed mark shall not be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), even though the goods in question are similar to those of the cited marks.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismiss the entire allegations of HUGO BOSS and allowed the opposed mark “Hugoo” to survive.

SpaceX Scores Win in Trademark Invalidation Action

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Space Exploitation Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) in an attempt to revoke TM Reg no. 6613282 for the mark “SPACEX / spacex.co.jp” (cl. 25, 26) in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.
[Invalidation case no. 2023-890010, decided on June 4, 2024]

Contested mark

NDR Tech Co., Ltd. filed trademark application for a mark composed of the two word-elements “SPACEX” and “spacex.co.jp”, arranged in two lines (see below) for use on apparels and footwear in class 25 and insignias for wear, buckles for clothing, badges for wear, brooches for clothing, brassards in class 26 with the JPO on December 20, 2021 (TM App no. 2021-163633).

The JPO examiner granted protection to the mark on August 19, 2022.

Invalidation action by SpaceX

Space Exploitation Technologies Corporation, aka SpaceX, filed an invalidation action on February 15, 2023 and claimed the contested mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii), (x), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

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.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits the registration of trademarks that are likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.

SpaceX could not rely on Article 4(1)(xi) because their attempt to register the mark “SPACEX” in class 25 (TM App no. 2020-125746) was unsuccessful due to a conflict with the earlier TM Reg no. 6222450 for wordmark “SPACEX” owned by NDR Tech.

SpaceX argued that the mark “SpaceX” has been widely recognized as a commercial name of the claimant among the general public in Japan even before the time of initial application of the contested mark due to its frequent appearance in print and broadcast media.

NDR Tech asserted that the domain name “spacex.co.jp” is only available to companies registered in Japan. As the proprietor of the domain, they have a legitimate interest in registering and owning the contested mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Invalidation Board admitted that the mark “SpaceX” has become famous among the general public as an abbreviation of the claimant.

It is obvious that the contested mark contains the term “SPACEX” and “spacex”, which are known as a famous abbreviation of the claimant. Based on the fact that NDR Tech did not obtain the consent of SpaceX, the contested mark does not comply with the requirements of Article 4(1)(viii).

Bearing in mind that the mark “SpaceX” has been used on T-shirts, hoodies and caps, the Board has reasons to believe that relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of goods in question bearing the contested mark with SpaceX. If so, the contested mark shall be revoked under Article 4(1)(xv) as well.

https://shop.spacex.com/

In the decision, the Board noted ‘The fact that NDR Tech owns the domain “spacex.co.jp” is irrelevant to the invalidity of the contested mark based on the above articles.’

Chrysler Lost Trademark Opposition against “GEEP”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA US) LLC against TM Reg no. 6689119 for the mark “GEEP” with device (cl. 18, 25) due to dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with the mark “JEEP”.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900142, decided on May 31, 2024]

“GEEP”

A Japanese individual filed a trademark application for the mark “GEEP” with device (see below) for use on goods “bags and pouches; umbrellas; canes; clothing for pets” and others in class 18, and “clothing; belts; footwear; masquerade costumes; sports shoes; sportswear” and others in class 25 with the JPO on October 14, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-118091).

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action to the mark and granted protection on April 4, 2023. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on April 20, 2023.

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 June 19, 2023.

FCA argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) 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 “GEEP” and the opponent’s famous earlier registered mark “JEEP.”

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

FCA contended that the opposed mark “GEEP” is similar to its own trademark “JEEP,” a globally famous automobile brand given a mere difference in the first letter “G” and “J”. Besides, the goods in question are identical or similar.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits the registration of trademarks that are likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.

FCA contended that given the high degree of resemblance between the opposed mark and “JEEP”, relevant consumers of the goods in question are likely to confuse a source of goods bearing the opposed mark with the opposing party.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that the mark “JEEP” has been widely recognized among general consumers to indicate the source of FCA’s goods and business.

However, the Board found both marks dissimilar on the grounds that:

  1. There are visual distinctions in the presence and absence of the blue device and between the first letter “G” and “J”. Thees differences are significant and clearly distinguishable in appearance. Consequently, both marks are anything but confusingly similar in appearance.
  2. The opposed mark does not give rise to a specific concept, whereas the cited mark has a meaning of “FCA’s automobile brand.” Accordingly, there is no risk of confusion in concept.
  3. Relevant consumers would consider respective mark different even if both marks have the same sound, because of clear distinction in appearance and concept as well as the overall impression of both marks.

By taking account of a low degree of similarity between the opposed mark and “JEEP”, and remote association between the goods in question and automobiles, the Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse the source of goods bearing the opposed mark with “JEEP”.

Based on the above findings, the Board conclude that the opposition was without merit and thus granted protection to the opposed mark as the status quo.