Adidas Unsuccessful in Opposition over BOOST mark

On May 18, 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Adidas AG against Trademark Reg no. 6383132 for the wordmark “G-BOOST” by finding dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion with Adidas “BOOST”.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900273]

G-BOOST

UNI WORLD Co., Ltd. filed wordmark “G-BOOST” in standard character for use on ‘gloves for protection against accidents; clothing for protection against accidents; protective industrial shoes; dust masks’ in class 9 and ‘clothing; footwear; gloves; thermal gloves; sports shoes; sportswear; socks’ in class 25 on March 30, 2020.

The applicant promotes worker gloves bearing the mark “G-BOOST.”

The JPO granted protection of the mark on March 30, 2021, and published for opposition on May 25, 2021.


Opposition by Adidas

On July 14, 2021, Adidas AG filed an opposition and argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), and 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law due to a conflict with earlier trademark registrations pertinent to Adidas BOOST shoes, namely, TM Reg nos. 5212257 “BOOST” and 5941352 “ULTRABOOST” on shoes and sports shoes in class 25.

Allegedly, Adidas introduced Boost in 2013 as its revolutionary cushioning system, which provided the highest energy return in any running sneaker. The technology was designed to provide runners with soft cushioning and long-lasting energy that more rigid sneakers couldn’t.

Adidas argued the opposed mark “G-BOOST” is confusingly similar to “BOOST” because the term “BOOST” shall be a prominent portion of the opposed mark given an alphabetical letter “G” perse lacks distinctiveness in relation to the goods in question. Besides, “BOOST” has become famous as a source indicator of Adidas in relation to running shoes. If so, relevant consumers are likely to confuse the source of goods bearing the opposed mark with Adidas.


JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board did not admit a certain degree of reputation and popularity of the BOOST mark as a source indicator of Adidas running shoes among relevant consumers in Japan by stating that the opponent failed to produce sufficient evidence to disclose sales figures, market share, and advertising expenditures, media space and time of the goods bearing the BOOST mark even though the opponent produced evidence to demonstrate marketing campaign for the BOOST shoes in Japan.

In addition, the Board compared “G-BOOST” with “BOOST” as a whole and negated the similarity of the marks because of a clear distinction in appearance and sound.

Given the low degree of similarity of the mark and unproved famousness of the opponent mark, the Board has no reason to believe relevant consumers would confuse a source of the goods bearing the opposed mark with Adidas.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations and decided the opposed mark shall remain valid as the status quo.

Chrysler loses trademark opposition against “JEEPER” in Japan

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA US) LLC against TM Reg no. 6317667 for the wordmark “Jeeper” to be used on hand tools in class 8 by finding the unlikelihood of confusion with “JEEP” vehicles.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900035, Gazette issued date: April 28, 2022]

Opposed 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).

The JPO admitted registration on November 17, 2020, and published for opposition on December 8, 2020.


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 January 26, 2021.

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


JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted a certain degree of reputation and popularity of the opponent trademark “JEEP” in connection with automobiles. However, the Board questioned if relevant consumers of hand tools have the same perception.

In assessing the similarity of the mark, the Board held that “Jeeper” and “JEEP” are less likely to cause confusion from visual and phonetical points of view. Conceptually, both marks are distinctively 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.’

Given that “JEEP” has not become famous in relation to the hand tools in question, the Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers would associate the goods bearing the mark “Jeeper” with the opponent or any business entity systematically or economically connected with Chrysler in view 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.

Trademark Opposition: Samurai vs Samouraï

In a trademark opposition disputing the similarity between “Samurai” and “Samouraï”, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the opposition filed by Parfums Samouraï SA against TM Reg no. 6384904 for a stylized word “Samurai” due to dissimilar to “Samouraï”.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900283, Gazette issued date: April 28, 2022]

TM Reg no. 6384904 “Samurai”

The opposed mark, consisting of a stylized word n “Samurai” (see below), was applied with the JPO on September 29, 2020, for use on cosmetics, soaps, perfumes, fragrances, and other goods in class 3 by a Japanese business entity, Yugen Kaisha Life Products.

The JPO granted protection on February 12, 2021, and published for opposition on May 25, 2021.

Apparently, the applicant promotes soaps in the name of “SAMURAI SOAP” via the internet.


Opposition by Parfums Samouraï SA

Opponent, Parfums Samouraï SA, alleged the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(x) and (xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for the wordmark “Samouraï” in classes 3.

The opponent argued that they have been promoting perfumes and fragrances, hair wax, and softener bearing the “Samouraï” mark since 1997, and thus the opponent mark has acquired a certain degree of reputation in the industry of perfumes. Besides, the opposed mark has the same sound and meaning as the opponent mark, namely, a member of a powerful class of fighters in Japan’. If so, both marks shall be deemed similar even though there is a difference in appearance.


JPO decision

To my surprise, the JPO Opposition Board found that it is doubtful if the opposed mark consists of the term “Samurai” from appearance. The initial letter is true “S”. But subsequent letters are illegible. If so, the opposed mark would not give rise to any specific sound and meaning.

Given the opposed mark does not have a sound and meaning relating to “Samurai”, the Board can’t find a reasonable ground to believe a certain degree of similarity between the opposed mark and the opponent mark.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO found the opposed mark shall not be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(x) and (xi) and dismissed the opposition entirely.

SUPERMAN defeated in trademark battle by SUPER M.E.N.

On April 7, 2022, the Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed a trademark opposition filed by Warner Bros against TM Reg no. 6375288 for the wordmark “SUPER M.E.N.” and found the mark is dissimilar to “Superman.”

[Opposition case no. 2021-900257]

“SUPER M.E.N.”

Opposed mark, consisting of the word “SUPER M.E.N.” written in alphabets and Japanese Katakana character (see below) was applied with the JPO on February 7, 2020, for use on various goods in classes 5,9,10,25,28 and services in classes 35, 45 (TM App no. 2020-14074) by Dr. Nakamatsu, a famous Japanese inventor.

The JPO granted protection on March 29, 2021, and published for opposition on April 27, 2021.

Dr. Nakamatsu promotes unique face shields bearing the SUPER M.E.N. mark to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. According to the advertisement, “M.E.N.” suggests ‘mouth, eye, and nose’ and ‘face mask; festival mask’ (The term “omen” is the exact word to mean it in Japanese).

Image credit: Dr.NakaMats.Com.

Opposition by Warner Bros

Opponent, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. claimed the opposed mark “SUPER M.E.N.” shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for a fictional superhero “Superman” in relation to visor caps; cap peaks of class 25 and toy masks; carnival masks; costume masks; theatrical masks of class 28.

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 the 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, the examiner would decide 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.

Warner Bros argued that the opposed mark gives rise to a meaning of ‘multiple SUPERMAN’ from its configuration. Besides, in view of resembled appearance and pronunciation between the marks, relevant consumers of the goods in question are likely to associate the opposed mark with the superhero “SUPERMAN” and confuse the source of origin of these goods.


JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found the opposed mark is pronounced as “super-men”, however, it does not give rise to any specific meaning at all.

By virtue of the difference between the letters “E” and “A” and the katakana character, both marks can be sufficiently distinguishable by appearance.

In phonetical comparison between “super-man” and “super-men”, relevant consumers would be unlikely to confuse each sound when pronounced in view of a few phonetic compositions of four sounds in total and distinction in the sound of “ma” and “me”.

There is no doubt both marks are dissimilar in concept because the opposed mark does not give rise to any meaning similar to ‘a fictional superhero’.

Based on the above findings, the Board held that “SUPER M.E.N.” and “SUPERMAN” are obviously dissimilar from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view.

In a conclusion, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations of Warner Bros and allowed registration of the opposed mark.

Failed Opposition against “Zara Sube Mist” by ZARA

On March 25, 2022, 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. 6357258 for word mark “Zara Sube Mist” in class 3 by finding dissimilarity to and less likelihood of confusion with “ZARA”.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900193]

Zara Sube Mist

The opposed mark, consisting of three words, “Zara”, “Sube”, and “Mist” in standard character, was applied for registration by IBI Inc. to be used on cosmetics in class 3 on January 30, 2020.

The JPO granted protection on February 16, 2021, and published for opposition on March 23, 2021.

The applicant is using the opposed mark on skin lotions. Click here.

It should be noted “zara zara” is a usual term to represent the condition of ‘rough skin’ in Japanese. Likewise, “sube sube” is often used to represent the condition of ‘smooth skin’. Because of it, we would conceive of skin conditions from the term “Zara Sube.”


Opposition by Inditex

Opponent, INDITEX, one of the world’s largest fashion retailers and owner of the fashion brand “ZARA”, claimed the opposed mark “Zara Sube Mist” shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier IR no. 973064 for word mark “ZARA” in relation with cosmetics of class 3.

INDITEX argued, that given “ZARA” has acquired a remarkable reputation, relevant consumers of the goods in question are likely to see the literal element “Zara” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark and thus confuse or misconceive the opposed mark with “ZARA”.


JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that “ZARA” has become famous among relevant consumers and traders as a source indicator of the opponent in connection with clothing.

In the meantime, the Board questioned if the opponent mark “ZARA” has acquired a certain degree of reputation and popularity in relation to cosmetics from the produced evidence.

The Board found the consumers would see the opposed mark in its entirety due to a tight combination of three words and a non-redundant sound of ‘zara-sube-mist’. Being that “ZARA” failed to prove a certain degree of reputation and popularity as a source indicator of cosmetics, the Board has a reason to believe that relevant consumers would not consider the term “Zara” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark. If so, the opposed mark just gives rise to a pronunciation of ‘zara-sube-mist’ and no specific meaning.

Based on the above findings, the Board held “Zara Sube Mist” and “ZARA” are obviously dissimilar from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view.

If so, the opposed mark “Zara Sube Mist” is unlikely to cause confusion with “ZARA” by virtue of a low degree of similarity and remote association between apparel and cosmetics even though “ZARA” has been famous for apparel brand and coined word.

In a conclusion, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations of INDITEX and allowed “Zara Sube Mist” to survive.

Trademark Parody case: Champion Defeated by Nyanpion

On March 16, 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC against TM Reg no. 6368388 for the mark “Nyanpion” with a device due to dissimilarity to and the unlikelihood of confusion with the famous apparel brand “Champion.”

[Opposition case no. 2021-900230]

Opposed mark

A Japanese individual applied a composite mark consisting of a stylized word “Nyanpion” and a cat device (see below) for use on apparel, headgear, footwear, sports shoes, and sportswear in class 25 with the JPO on August 25, 2020.

The JPO examiner granted protection of the opposed mark on January 29, 2021, and published for opposition on April 13, 2021.

T-shirts, sweats, hoodies, and tote bags bearing the Nyanpion mark have been promoted for sale with a catchword of “Champion” parody.

I should note that “Nyan” is the sound cats make in Japan. Because of it, “Nyanpion” easily reminds us of a combination of cat sounds and “Champion”.


Opposition by Champion

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on June 14, 2021.

HBI argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of the Champion brand in relation to apparels and a high degree of similarity between the opposed mark and its owned trademark registrations (see below) to the extent that relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods in question bearing the opposed mark with “Champion”.


JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that the “Champion” mark has acquired a high degree of reputation as a result of substantial use in Japan for more than four decades and become famous as a source indicator of the opponent.

In the meantime, the Board negated the similarity between the marks by stating that:

From the appearance, the difference in the prefix of literal elements, “Nyanpion” and “Champion” would suffice for relevant consumers to distinguish them. The figurative element of the opposed mark represents a cat’s face. The opponent device mark gives rise to an impression of a letter “C”. If so, both marks are sufficiently distinguishable in appearance.

Phonetically, “Nyanpion” is easily distinguishable from “Champion” because of the difference in the first sound given both marks just consist of five sounds respectively.

Conceptually, the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. Meanwhile, the opponent mark has a meaning of someone or something, especially a person or animal, that has beaten all other competitors in competition and ‘famous apparel brand.’ If so, both marks are dissimilar in concept.

By virtue of a low degree of similarity, the Board found relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse or associate the source of the goods bearing the “Nyanpion” mark with “Champion” and any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations and decided the opposed mark shall remain valid as the status quo.

COCOGOLF vs COCO

On February 28, 2022, the Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s rejection and decided to register the applied mark “COCOGOLF” in classes 25 and 28 by finding dissimilarity to Chanel’s earlier registration for the mark “COCO.”


COCOGOLF

The applied mark consists of the word “COCOGOLF” (see below).

Applicant, E-COME GROUP Co., Ltd., filed it for use on various goods in classes 18, 25, and 28 on November 27, 2022. [TM Application no. 2020-146448]

Confronting office action from the JPO, the applicant divided the application and filed a new trademark application on goods of ‘sports shoes; sportswear’ in class 25 and ‘golf bags; golf equipment in class 28 on July 2, 2021. [TM Application no. 2021-82743]

The JPO examiner rejected the mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law on October 12, 2021.

The examiner cited earlier trademark registration nos. #6169514 (cl. 25, 35) and IR699469 (cl. 25) for the wordmark “COCO” owned by Chanel SARL, and found the applied mark “COCOGOLF” is confusingly similar to the cited mark “COCO” when used on the designated goods in class 25 and 28.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on November 17, 2021, and argued for the dissimilarity in the marks.


JPO Decision

The Appeal Board found the applied mark shall be assessed in its entirety by stating:

  1. Visually, there is no reason to consider the term “COCO” as a prominent portion of the applied mark because of its configuration.
  2. The applied mark gives rise to the pronunciation of ‘coco-golf’. The whole sound can be pronounced easily in a breach.
  3. The Board has no reason to believe the term “GOLF” perse has been used to represent specific goods in relation to the goods in question.
  4. If so, relevant consumers at the sight of sports shoes, sportswear, golf bags, and golf equipment bearing the applied mark would see it as a whole, and are unlikely to consider the term “COCO” as a prominent source indicator of the applied mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found the examiner erred in finding “COCO” to be separable from “GOLF.” Consequently, the Board held the applied mark is dissimilar to the mark “COCO” and granted “COCOGOLF” registration.

[Appeal case no. 2021-15790]

Fighting Over ZOOM ROOMS

In a recent decision, the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Zoom Video Communications Inc. and dismissed an opposition against their Japanese TM Reg no. 6377998 for the mark “zoom rooms” by finding dissimilarity to earlier trademark “ZOOM.”

[Opposition case no. 2021-900267]

ZOOM

Undoubtedly, with millions of people being forced to stay home to help stop the spread of COVID-19, Zoom, one of the dozens of video conferencing services launched in 2011, has risen to the top, thanks to intense separation measures and a profound resonance within this new social distancing culture.

When it comes to trademark, the mark “ZOOM” has been registered in Japan over goods of classes 9 and 15 by Zoom Co., Ltd., a Japanese business entity producing recording devices, multi-effects processors, effects pedals, digital mixers, and samplers since 1992.


ZOOM ROOMS

Zoom Video Communications Inc. filed a trademark application for the mark “zoom rooms” (see below) for use on various goods and services in classes 9, 38, and 42 on May 28, 2020.

The mark was granted registration on April 15, 2021, and published for opposition on May 11, 2021.

On July 9, 2021, before the lapse of a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Zoom Co., Ltd. filed an opposition. The opponent argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing their owned senior registration for the mark “ZOOM” (see below).


JPO Decision

The Opposition Board found the opposed mark gives rise to a pronunciation of ‘zuːm-ruːm’, but no specific meaning. In the meantime, the opponent’s mark gives rise to a pronunciation of ‘zuːm’ and the meaning of ‘the effect of a camera moving toward or away from a subject by using a zoom lens. From the appearance, it is unlikely that relevant consumers confuse both marks because of the severe difference in letters and configuration. Phonetically, the consumers with ordinary care can easily distinguish ‘zuːm-ruːm’ from ‘zuːm’. Conceptually, the Board has a reason to believe the opposed mark is dissimilar to the mark “ZOOM” since it does not give rise to any specific meaning at all.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found both marks are unlikely to cause confusion and are deemed dissimilar.

The Board did not agree to consider “zoom” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark by taking into account seven sounds in total and the same font, size, and intervals between respective letters of the opposed mark.

Consequently, the JPO dismissed the opposition entirely and decided the validity of the opposed mark as the status quo.

Failed trademark opposition by HERMES against HAIRMES

On December 1, 2021, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Hermes International against TM Reg no. 6275593 for the wordmark “HAIRMES” due to dissimilarity to and the unlikelihood of confusion with the famous fashion brand “HERMES”.
[Opposition case no. 2020-900266]


Opposed 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.

The JPO examiner granted protection of the opposed mark on July 28, 2020, and published for opposition on August 18, 2020.

Apparently, Dog Diggin Designs promotes parody dog toys & dog beds, and other pet supplies.

https://www.dogdiggindesigns.com/

Opposition by Hermes

To oppose against registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Hermes International filed an opposition against the opposed mark on October 15, 2020.

Hermes argued the opposed 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.


JPO decision


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

In the meantime, the Board negated similarity between the marks by stating that:

From the appearance, the difference of “AI” and “E” in the middle of a respective word would suffice for relevant consumers to distinguish them.
Phonetically, “HERMES” is easily distinguishable from “HAIRMES” because of the difference in the first and second given both marks just consist of four sounds respectively.
Conceptually, the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. Meanwhile, “HERMES” has a meaning of a Greek god of commerce, eloquence, invention, travel, and theft who serves as herald and messenger of the other gods and ‘luxury fashion brand.’ If so, both marks give rise to a different impression in the mind of relevant consumers.

Based on a low degree of similarity between the marks, the Board denied a likelihood of confusion as well.

As to Hermes’ allegation that Dog Diggin Designs must have an unjustified intention to free-ride the reputation of HERMES by promoting pet supplies with a similar package design and color to Hermes, the Board found irrelevant to the case since the opposed mark does not contain such figurative element. Ironically, the opposed mark “HAIRMES” rather serves to prevent confusion even if used on similar package design and color, the Board held.

https://www.dogdiggindesigns.com/

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations and decided the opposed mark shall remain valid as the status quo.

GAP Unsuccessful in Trademark Opposition against “Gapace”

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by the US apparel company, Gap (ITM) Incorporated, against TM Reg no. 6304400 for wordmark “Gapace” to be used on apparel in class 25 by finding dissimilarity to and the unlikelihood of confusion with “GAP.”

[Opposition case no. 2020-900346, Gazette issued date: December 24, 2021]

Opposed mark

The wordmark “Gapace” was filed by a Chinese individual for use on various goods and apparel belonging to class 25 with the JPO on October 15, 2019 (TM App no. 2019-132880).

The JPO admitted registration on October 15, 2020, and published for opposition on November 4, 2020.


Opposition by GAP

To oppose against registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Gap (ITM) Inc. filed an opposition against the opposed mark on December 24, 2020.

GAP argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Trademark Law because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of the GAP mark as a source indicator of US apparel giant and a high degree of similarity between the opposed mark “Gapace” and the opponent’s famous earlier registered mark “GAP.”

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.

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


JPO Decision

To my surprise, the JPO Opposition Board denied a substantial degree of reputation and popularity of the opponent trademark “GAP” in connection with apparel by stating that the produced evidence failed to demonstrate sales amount and its market share in Japan. A mere reference to the fact that the opponent has launched an apparel business in Japan since 1994 and promoted apparel bearing the GAP mark for sale at their 150 stores nationwide is insufficient. Likewise, a fact that GAP was ranked 4th in the Top 10 clothing retailers in the world in 2021 is not persuasive to find a high degree of popularity among relevant consumers in foreign countries at the time of both filling the opposed mark and registration.

In assessing the similarity of the mark, the Board held “GAP” and “Gapace” are totally dissimilar from visual and phonetical points of view. Conceptually, both marks are not similar because the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. In the meantime, the opponent mark “GAP” has a meaning of ‘separation in space.’

Given the opponent mark “GAP” was not proven to have become famous in relation to the goods in question, the Board found it is unlikely that relevant consumers would conceive the literal element of “Gap” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark when used on apparels.

Based on the foregoing, the Board had no reasonable ground to believe the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv), and (xix), and decided to dismiss the entire opposition accordingly.