カテゴリー: Alphabetical word

Volkswagen Unsuccessful in TM Opposition contesting similarity between Touran and TURANO

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition against TM Reg no. 6754807 “TURANO” in class 12 claimed by Volkswagen AG due to dissimilarity to IR no. 782978 “Touran” that has been used on the VW’s compact vans.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900017, decided on August 28, 2024]

TURANO

The opposed mark, consisting of a wordmark “TURANO” in standard character, was filed by DAIDO KOGYO Co., Ltd. for use on drive chains, transmission chains and belts, and other parts and accessories for land vehicles including automobiles in class 12 with the JPO on May 9, 2023.

The JPO examiner granted protection of the mark “TURANO” on October 31, 2023 without issuing any notice of grounds for refusal. The mark was published for a post-grant opposition on November 27, 2023.

Opposition by VW

Volkswagen AG filed an opposition against the mark “TURANO” on January 23, 2024 before the lapse of a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date.

Volkswagen claimed the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

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.

Volkswagen argued that the opposed mark “TURANO” is similar to IR no. 782978 for wordmark “Touran” in standard character. Besides, the goods in question are identical with or similar to “automobiles and parts of the aforementioned goods; coupling and transmission components for land vehicles; engines for land vehicles” that are designated under IR no. 782978.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board denied similarity of the mark “TURANO” and “Touran” by stating that:

  1. Appearance
    • Two marks are relatively short, since each consists of six letters. There are the differences in spelling as well as a type of letter. Namely, the opposed mark consists only of upper-case letters, while the cited mark consists of upper-case and lower-case letters. Therefore, there is no risk of confusion between two marks in terms of appearance.
  2. Sound
    • Aurally, the first sound of the cited mark is pronounced with a long tone. In addition, there is a clear difference between the final sound “no” and “n”. In a relatively short form, these differences have a significant impact on the overall sound to the extent that the relevant consumers are able to easily distinguish two sounds easily. Therefore, there is no likelihood of confusion.
  3. Concept
    • A conceptual comparison is neutral as neither “TURANO” not “Touran” have any clear meaning.
  4. Conclusion
    • Even if the conceptual aspect does not have impact on the assessment of similarity since both marks are meaningless, the Board has a reason to believe that both marks are considered dissimilar because of less likelihood of confusion in appearance and sound.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to dismiss the entire opposition by Volkswagen and granted registration of the opposed mark as the status quo.

JPO found “Arounds” dissimilar to “AROUND” as trademark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed examiner’s rejection to TM App no. 2023-100274 “Arounds” in classes 9, 35, 41 and 42 by finding dissimilarity of mark to earlier IR no. 873694 “AROUND” in class 9.
[Appeal case no. 2024-7308, decided on August 13, 2024]

Arounds

Funny Side Up, Inc. filed a trademark application for wordmark “Arounds” in standard character for use on goods in class 9 and services in classes 35, 41, and 42 with the JPO on September 7, 2023.

The applicant uses the mark to indicate an online platform for a lifestyle exchange community.

AROUND

On February 14, 2024, the JPO examiner rejected the mark “Arounds” in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law due to a conflict with earlier IR no. 873694 for wordmark “AROUND” in class 9.

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.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection with the JPO on April 30, 2024 and argued dissimilarity of mark between “Arounds” and “AROUND”.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board found the examiner errored in finding similarity of mark and decided to reverse the rejection.

  • Assessment of the applied mark

The term “Arounds” is neither present in dictionaries nor immediately recognizable as a specific word. Therefore, the mark “Arounds” just has a sound of “Arounds”, but not any specific meaning from its component letters.

  • Assessment of the earlier mark

It is obvious that the average consumers will recognize the cited mark, comprised of the English word “AROUND”, has a sound of “AROUND” and a meaning of ‘positioned or moving in or near a place’ from its constituent letters.

  • Comparison of two marks

From appearance, two marks share the same term “Around” at the beginning. However, the term “AROUND”, a commonly known English word among consumers, has been rarely represented or used in the plural form. If so, the Board has a reason to believe that, on account of the presence of a letter “s” at the end of the applied mark, relevant consumers will consider two marks represent different words and thus it is possible for the consumers to visually distinguish them.

Because of aural difference in the bottom sound of “z” or “d”, it causes a discernible distinction in the overall tone and nuance so that the consumers can distinguish the sound of two marks.

Regarding conceptual comparison, the cited mark gives rise to a clear meaning, whereas the applied mark does not have any specific meaning. Therefore, there is no risk of confusion from a conceptual point of view.

Given relevant consumers can distinguish both marks from appearance and sound, and there is no likelihood of confusion in concept, the Board has a reason to believe that the applied mark “Arounds” is dissimilar to the cited mark “AROUNDS” even if when used on the same or similar goods in class 9.

  • Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to overturn the examiner’s rejection and granted registration of the applied mark.

Trademark dispute: “Ⓗ REWARDS” vs “REWARDS”

Posted on

In a recent decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) found that a junior mark consisting of Circled “H” and a word “REWARDS” is dissimilar to earlier trademark “REWARDS” and decided to overturn the examiner’s refusal.
[Appeal case no. 2024-1366, decided on August 6, 2024]

Applied mark

H WORLD HOLDINGS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. filed a trademark application with the JPO on August 2, 2022. for a mark consisting of a circled “H” device and the word “REWARDS” (see below) in connection with various services of Classes 35 and 43.

Cited mark

On December 5, 2023, the JPO examiner decided to reject the applied mark due to a conflict with earlier TM Reg no. 5017950 for wordmark “REWARDS” in standard character for use on various services in classes 35 and 39 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 identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection with the JPO on January 25, 2024.

JPO decision

Astonishingly, the JPO Appeal Board found the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited mark by stating that:

The applied mark is composed of the alphabet “H” in circle and a word “REWARDS”. Despite the slight separation between “H” and “REWARDS”, as these letters are represented in the same typeface and alphabets in a horizontal line, it rather gives a coherent impression in appearance.

 Although the word “REWARDS” is an English word denoting the plural form of “REWARD,” in a coherent composition like the applied mark, the applied mark will be simply recognized as representing a coined word consisting of the words “H REWARDS.”

If so, the applied mark would give rise to a sound of ‘H REWARDS’, but no specific meaning as a whole.

Comparing the applied mark with the cited mark, regardless of the fact that both marks share the word “REWARDS,” two marks are visually distinguishable by virtue of the presence or absence of the circled letter “H”.

Likewise, both marks are distinguishable in sound because of the presence or absence of the initial component sound that remarkably alters the overall tone and nuance.

From a conceptual point of view, the applied mark does not give rise to a specific meaning, whereas the cited mark has a meaning of “ something given in exchange for good behavior or good work, etc.” There is no room to find conceptual similarity between the marks.

Based on the above findings, the Board noted that the applied mark is sufficiently distinguishable from the cited mark and unlikely to cause confusion with the cited mark when used in relation to the services in question.

Therefore, even though the services sought for registration by the applied mark are deemed similar to the service designated under the cited mark, given the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited mark, it is inappropriate to apply Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

Accordingly, the Board decided to overturn the examiner’s rejection and granted protection of the applied mark.

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.

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”.

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 dispute: MARNI vs. MARNO

Posted on

The Italian fashion brand “MARNI” lost the trademark opposition against TM Reg no. 6658657 for the wordmark “MARNO” (cl. 14,18,25). The Japan Patent Office (JPO) found both marks dissimilar and less likelihood of confusion because there was insufficient evidence to support a certain degree of recognition of the mark “MARNI” among general consumers.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900065, decided on May 16, 2024]

“MARNO”

Godo Kaisha MARNO filed a trademark application for the word mark “MARNO” in standard character for use on goods “precious metals; jewelry; key rings; jewelry boxes; personal ornaments; clocks and watches” in class 14, “bags and pouches; umbrellas; canes; clothing for pets” in class 18, “clothing; belts; footwear; masquerade costumes; sports shoes; sportswear” in class 25 with the JPO on July 29, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-88022).

Apparently, the applicant promotes apparels for lady using the mark on their website.

https://marno.life/products/ivy-skirt

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action to the application and granted protection on December 13, 2024. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on January 13, 2023.

Opposition by MARNI

Marni Group S.r.l., an Italian luxury fashion house, filed an opposition on March 13, 2023 just before the lapse of a two-month statutory period and claimed the opposed mark “MARNO” shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations (TM Reg no. 4842090, 4791866, 4786424, 3200522, 2339221, 6676890, IR1007074, IR1520528, IR1689338, IR698847) for the mark “MARNI”.

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.

MARNI contended that the opposed mark “MARNO” is similar to its own trademark “MARNI,” a globally renowned fast-fashion brand given a mere difference in the last letter “O” and “I”. 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.

MARNI contended that the mark “MARNI” has become renowned among relevant consumers in connection with apparel. Given the high degree of resemblance between “MARNO” and “MARNI” as well as the goods, it is likely that consumers will confuse or misconceive the goods bearing the opposed mark “MARNO” with “MARNI.”

Article 4(1)(xix) proscribes the registration of a trademark that is identical with or similar to another entity’s famous mark if the trademark is intended for the purpose of gaining unfair profits or causing damage to the entity.

MARNI contended that the applicant had filed the opposed mark with the intention of obtaining unfair profits through free-riding on the well-known trademark “MARNI”.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that the mark “MARNI” has been recognized among consumers who has high interest to fashion to some extent from the produced evidence, however, in view of the facts that the dates of the evidence are after the grant of protection of the opposed mark, the period and evaluation method of the brand ranking is unclear, and no evidence regarding the sales amount and advertisement of the goods bearing the mark MARNI are provided, the Board questioned whether the mark “MARNI” has been widely recognized among general consumers to indicate the source of MARNI’s goods and business.

Next, the Board assessed similarity of mark. In appearance and sound between “MARNO” and “MARNI”, the distinction of “O” and “I” at the end of the word has a significant impact on the overall visual and oral impression of the two marks, which both have only five letters and three sounds. Therefore, the marks are visually and phonetically distinguishable. Since both marks do not give rise to any specific meaning, it is impossible to compare the concept of the two marks. Accordingly, the Board has reason to believe that both marks are significantly dissimilar.

By taking account of insufficient recognition of the mark “MARNI” among relevant consumers and a low degree of similarity between two marks, it is unlikely that the consumer at the sight of the goods in question bearing the opposed mark confuse the source with MARNI.

Besides, the evidence presented to the Board does not provide grounds to believe that the applicant intended to obtain profits through the exploitation of the well-known trademark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed the opposition entirely.

ZARA Unsuccessful Opposition against TM “LAZARA”

Posted on

On April 22, 2024, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (INDITEX), owner of the fashion brand “ZARA”, against TM Reg no. 6699667 for word mark “LAZARA” in classes 25 due to dissimilar marks and unlikelihood of confusion with “ZARA”.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900175]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark, consisting of a wordmark “LAZARA” in standard character, was applied for registration by Japanese individual to be used on clothing in class 25 on November 20, 2022, and published for post-grant opposition on May 29, 2023.

Opposition by Inditex

Opponent, INDITEX, one of the world’s largest fashion retailers and owner of the fashion brand “ZARA”, filed an opposition on July 27, 2023 before the lapse of a two-month statutory period and claimed opposed mark “LAZARA” shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations (TM Reg no. 4108998 and IR no. 752502 in class25) for word mark “ZARA”.

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.

INDITEX contended that the opposed mark “LAZARA” is similar to its own trademark “ZARA,” a globally renowned fast-fashion brand given the suffix “LA” is a descriptive word that merely indicates the definite article in Spanish. Besides, the goods in question are identical.

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

INDITEX contended that the mark “ZARA” has become renowned among relevant consumers in connection with apparel. Given the high degree of resemblance between “LAZARA” and “ZARA” as well as the goods, it is likely that consumers will confuse or misconceive the goods bearing the opposed mark “LAZARA” with “ZARA.”

Article 4(1)(xix) proscribes the registration of a trademark that is identical with or similar to another entity’s famous mark if the trademark is intended for the purpose of gaining unfair profits or causing damage to the entity.

INDITEX contended that the applicant had filed the opposed mark with the intention of obtaining unfair profits through free-riding on the well-known trademark “ZARA”.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board held that “ZARA” has acquired a certain degree of recognition among relevant consumers in Japan and foreign countries as a source indication of clothing, however, the Board denied a high degree of recognition of the mark among the consumers by taking into consideration the produced evidence. The Board criticized “INDITEX produced precedent administrative decisions as evidence that admitted famousness of the mark “ZARA” in Japan. But, famousness of trademark shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis based on relevant facts and evidence produced in each case. Therefore, the precedent decisions would not bind the ongoing case. INDITEX did not reveal sales figure and expenditure for advertisement in connection with apparel bearing the mark ZARA.”

Furthermore, the Board found the consumers would perceive the opposed mark “LAZARA” as a whole, which would suggest an unfamiliar foreign word from a visual perspective. If so, “LAZARA” and “ZARA” are evidently dissimilar in appearance and pronunciation because of the distinction between the presence and absence of the letter “LA” in the suffix and the overall sound. As for the concept, it is not comparable since either mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. Consequently, both marks are unlikely to cause confusion due to their dissimilarity.

Additionally, the Board noted that INDITEX had not presented any evidence to substantiate their assertion that the applicant had filed the opposed mark for the purpose of gaining unfair profits or causing harm to INDITEX.

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

French fashion magazine “ELLE” Lost in trademark opposition against “elLle HOTEL”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by HACHETTE FILIPACCHI PRESSE, Société Anonyme (FR) against Japanese TM Reg no. 6681746 for the “elLle HOTEL” mark in class 43 by finding dissimilarity to and less likelihood of confusion with French fashion magazine “ELLE”.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900123, decided on November 29, 2023]

elLle HOTEL

Opposed mark, consisting of a stylized term “elLle” placed above strikethrough word “HOTEL” (see below), was filed on November 25, 2022, for use on hotel and restaurant services in class 43 by Yugen Kaisha Yamaguchi Jitsugo, a Japanese company.

The JPO granted registration of the mark on March 16, 2023, and published it for post-grant opposition on March 27, 2023.

According to the allegations, the applicant newly opened a fashion hotel named “HOTEL elLle” in 2022.

captured from https://www.hotel-ellle.com/

Opposition by ELLE

On May 26, 2023, before the lapse of a two-month opposition period, HACHETTE FILIPACCHI PRESSE, Société Anonyme (hereinafter referred to as HFP), a French company responsible for the well-known women’s magazine ELLE, which had the largest readership of any fashion magazine in the world, with culturally specific editions published on six continents in the early 21st century, filed an opposition to the “elLle HOTEL” mark.

In the opposition, HFP contended that the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to refrain from registering 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, to the benefit of the brand owner and users.

HFP argued that the opposed mark is similar to HFP’s earlier registrations for the mark “ELLE” and relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive the opposed mark with HFP or any business entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent due to a remarkable reputation of opponent’s fashion brand “ELLE” and the close resemblance between the opposed mark and “ELLE”.

JPO decision

The Board admitted the “ELLE” mark has become famous among relevant consumers and traders as a source indicator of the opponent in connection with magazines, online magazines as well as fashion and daily items.

In the meantime, the Board questioned whether the mark “ELLE” has acquired a certain recognition in relation to the service in question.

Besides, the Board found the literal portion “elLle” would play a significant role in indicating a source of the opposed mark when used in the services of class 43. However, the Board held the term “elLle” shall be assessed in its entirety, and there is no reason to find relevant consumers consider it as “elle”. If so, the opposed mark is dissimilar to the “ELLE” mark even though respective concept is not to be compared.

Taking into consideration a low degree of similarity between the marks, the Board had no reason to believe that relevant consumers would mistakenly assume the opposed goods originate from the same source as or are associated with, the opponent when used on services in question.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to dismiss the opposition entirely.

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