Japan opened the gate to Non-Traditional trademark, namely, color, sound, position, motion, hologram, in April 2015. It seems true that, beyond expectation, JPO has a significantly high hurdle to clear.
543 applications for color marks were filed with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) as of now (Nov 15, 2020). Among them, only 8 color marks are allowed for registration.
1. Tombow Pencil “MONO” (stationery)
2. Seven-Eleven (convenience store)
3. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group
(financial service)
4. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group
(financial service)
5. Mitsubishi Pencil “UNI” (pencil)
6. Mitsubishi Pencil “HI-UNI” (pencil)
7. Family Mart (convenience store)
8. UCC Ueshima Coffee (canned coffee)
All the registered color marks consist of more than two colors. JPO has yet to register a single case of color per se.
Most single-color marks are rejected due to a lack of distinctiveness and failure to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness. Surprisingly, 492 applications (90.6%) are already rejected or voluntarily withdrawn by the applicant.
Red Bull was unsuccessful in registering a combination of dark blue and silver on energy drinks in class 32.
Hermes also failed to register a three-color combination over various goods in class 14, 18, and 25.
43 applications are in review with the JPO as of now. Remarkably, Christian Louboutin fights for the appeal against the refusal of its iconic red-sole.
On August 27, 2020, the Japan IP High Court ruled to affirm the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decision and rejected TM application no. 2016-34650 for a position mark consisting of fourteen open ellipses built-in grip section of cutting combs in class 21 due to a lack of inherent distinctiveness. [Court case no. Reiwa1(Gyo-ke)10143]
YS Park Cutting Comb
The YS Park Cutting Comb features a non-slip grip section with fourteen air ellipses spaced in 1cm intervals to allow for great flexibility and sectioning.
Allegedly, the comb has been distributed in
many countries and its annual sales increased to 170,000~27,000 pieces for the
last five years.
Position Mark
Plaintiff, a Japanese corporation to distribute the YS Park Cutting Comb since 1989, sought for registration for fourteen open ellipses built-in grip section of the Cutting Comb as a Position Mark (see below) on March 28, 2016.
In Japan, by an enactment of the New Trademark Law in 2014, new types of mark, namely, color, sound, position, motion, hologram, was allowed for trademark registration since April 2015.
JPO decision
On September 17, 2019, the JPO refused the position mark under Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law by finding that there are plenty of competitor’s combs with a design, pattern, hole, or pit in short intervals on the grip section and it gives rise to an impression of the decorative or functional linear pattern as a whole. If so, relevant consumers at the sight of cutting comb bearing the position mark would just conceive it as a pattern for decorative or functional indication, not as a source indicator. Besides, consecutive use on the YS Park Cutting Comb over a decade would be insufficient to acquire secondary meaning from the produced evidence and business practice in relation to cutting comb. [Appeal case no. 2018-8775]
Article 3(1)(vi) is a provision to
comprehensively prohibit from registering any mark lacking inherent
distinctiveness.
Any trademark to be used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant may be registered, unless the trademark: (vi) is in addition to those listed in each of the preceding items, a trademark by which consumers are not able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.
To contend, the applicant filed a lawsuit to the IP High Court on October 29, 2019, and demanded cancellation of the decision.
IP High Court Ruling
This is the 2nd court case for the IP High Court to hear the registrability of Position Mark.
At the outset, the court stated the distinctiveness of Position Mark shall be assessed as a whole by taking account of a constituent of the mark and its position on goods or services.
The court upheld fact-findings by the JPO that plenty of competitors advertise and provide cutting combs with a pattern, pit, or open holes in short intervals on the grip section to enhance its function. In this regard, it is unlikely that relevant consumers (general consumers on the case) would consider the whole pattern as a source indicator of the comb. The court pointed that plaintiff has promoted features of fourteen open ellipses on YS Park Cutting Comb with an advertisement of “Air Suspension Function” in fact. If so, consumers would find the open holes as a functional indication.
Plaintiff produced interviews and statements by beauticians, hairstylists, school officials/staff of Cosmetology and Beauty school and argued the secondary meaning of the Position mark, however, the court negated the allegation on the ground that such evidence is insufficient and irrelevant to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness since the goods in question shall be broadly targeted to general consumers. Thus, the court decided the JPO did not error in finding secondary meaning in the case.
On 23 June 2020, the Japan IP High Court decided a case concerning a single color mark that was rejected for registration by the Appeal Board of the Japan Patent Office (“JPO”).
Single Color Mark
On 1 April 2015, Hitachi Construction Machinery (“Hitachi”) filed an application for trademark registration with JPO consisting of a single color per se, namely orange (Munsell: 0.5YR5.6/11.2) over the goods of hydraulic excavators, wheel loaders, road loaders, loaders [earch moving machines] in class 7, and rigid dump trucks in class 12 (TM Application no. 2015-29999).
TM Application No. 2015-29999
By the decision of 19 September 2019, the Appeal
Board of JPO declared the applied color mark to be refused in contravention of Article
3(1)(iii) and Article 3(2) of the Trademark Law, finding that the
graphic representation of the color mark constituted the “mere single orange
color, without contours”. If so, the mark is not inherently distinctive
and it is lacking acquired distinctiveness. In the course of the appeal trial,
Hitachi amended and restricted the designated goods to “hydraulic excavators”.
Article 3(2) is a provision to allow registration of any mark with which the relevant public will associate a particular source, manufacturer, or producer over time through the trademark owner’s usage.
On 30 October 2019, Hitachi appealed
against the JPO decision.
IP High Court decision
At the outset, the court stated it is inevitable
on the case concerning single color mark to take the interest of competitors who
deal with the goods in question into consideration since allowing one trader to
exclusively use this color would likely to cause unjust competitive practice in
form of monopolistic power of use in favor of one trader only.
From the produced evidence, Hitachi has allegedly used the color in question on hydraulic excavators and other construction machines since 1974.
Hitachi Hydraulic Excavators
Hitachi consecutively holds a 20% market share (14.6%) of hydraulic excavators over the past four decades in Japan. The research showed that approx. 95.9 % (185 out of 193) of traders in the construction industry were able to associate the color with Hitachi.
In the meantime, several competitors use similar color on hydraulic excavators
In the decision, the court found orange color is one of the colors commonly seen in our daily life. Besides, the Japan Industrial Standard (JIS) adopts orange as a safety sign-color aiming to prevent harm to the human body and damage to properties. Because of it, at construction sites, we often see several items colored in orange, e.g. helmets, rain suits, guard fens, work clothes, tower cranes, construction vehicles.
Hitachi Hydraulic Excavators have other colors, in fact, namely, a house mark “HITACHI” colored in white, buckets (attachments), cockpits, and crawlers colored in black. If so, the applied mark shall be capable of playing the role of source indicator in combination with these. Thus, the court would not find reasonable grounds to believe that the orange color per se acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator of Hitachi’s Hydraulic Excavators.
The court even suspected credibility of the research by finding that it narrowly targeted traders or consumers who own more than 10 hydraulic excavators, precisely it showed 36.8% in light of initial research number of targets, 502 persons, and the questionnaire ‘Please answer. What maker do you think hydraulic excavator is?” was insufficient to conclude acquired distinctiveness since its answer may simply suggest one of the colors of Hitachi’s Hydraulic Excavators.
Even if hydraulic excavators market in Japan is an oligopoly with five makers accounting for 90 % of the industry share, and the orange color has been consecutively used by Hitachi only, it does not mean every competitor agreed to refrain from using the color given orange has been used on various goods in the construction and agriculture industry in general.
Based on the foregoing, the court affirmed the JPO decision and dismissed Hitachi’s allegations in contravention of Article 3(1)(iii) and 3(2).
Thus, it is obvious that a very high standard of distinctiveness needs to be attached to a single-color mark if the same has to be claimed for trademark protection.
This case was a second court decision concerning a single color mark. The first case, Reiwa1(Gyo-ke)10119 ruled on March 11, 2020, also ended with the rejection of a single orange color mark in contravention of other ground, Article 3(1)(vi).
How JPO Examines Color Marks
As of now (12 July 2020), 543 color marks were applied for registration with JPO since the commencement of the Non-Traditional trademark application in April 2015. So far, only 8 marks are successfully registered. See below.
In sum, the registration rate of color mark is barely 1.5%! It is noteworthy none of a ‘single’ color mark has been granted to registration.
The Japan Patent Office (JPO) allowed trademark registration of “Ghana” in connection with chocolates of class 30 by finding acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator of Lotte Co., Ltd., a Korea-based confectionary company. [Appeal case no. 2019-8784, Gazette issued date: May 29, 2020]
Lotte “Ghana” Chocolates
Ghana chocolate is Lotte’s signature product and one of the most beloved chocolate in Japan for many years.
Lotte Co., Ltd. launched chocolates bearing the “Ghana” mark in 1964. Since then, the mark has been prominently indicated on the packages.
[“Ghana” chocolate package back in 1970’s – TM Reg no. 892507]
In 1994 of the 30th anniversary, Lotte slightly changed the design of its package and the mark and added different tastes of “Ghana” chocolates, e.g. milk chocolates, white chocolates. On new packages, the “Ghana” mark is much conspicuously and largely indicated than before.
[Current package – TM Reg no. 5405402, registered on April 8, 2011]
On December 8, 2017, Lotte sought trademark registration for the current “Ghana” logo (see below) over chocolates in class 30. [TM application no. 2017-161593]
Article 3(1)(iii) & 4(1)(xvi)
The JPO rejected the “Ghana” mark in contravention of Article 3(1)(iii) and 4(1)(xvi) of the Japan Trademark Law by stating that “Ghana” is a geographical indication corresponding to Republic of Ghana, a country of western Africa, situated on the coast of the Gulf of Guinea, one of the major producers of high-quality cocoa beans. Therefore, relevant consumers and traders at the sight of chocolates bearing the “Ghana” mark would merely conceive it of the origin of cocoa beans. Besides, whenever the mark is used on chocolates not made from Ghana cocoa beans, it inevitably misleads the quality of goods.
Acquired distinctiveness
Lotte argued the “Ghana” mark shall be protectable based on Article 3(2), even if nominally unregistrable under Article 3(1)(iii) because it has acquired distinctiveness as a result of substantial and continuous use on chocolates in Japan.
Article 3(2) of the Trademark Law
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a trademark that falls under any of items (iii) to (v) of the preceding paragraph may be registered if, as a result of the use of the trademark, consumers are able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.
Appeal Board decision
The Appeal Board affirmed examiner’s
rejection pertinent to lack of distinctiveness in connection with goods in
question, however, the Board held that the “Ghana” mark would function as a
source indicator of Lotte chocolates consequently and thus registrable based on
the acquired distinctiveness under Article 3(2).
Allegedly Lotte “Ghana” chocolates hold
top-ranked market share in Japan since 2017. In 2008, Lotte sold more than 100
million bars of “Ghana” chocolates. The annual sales exceeded 1.2 billion JP-yen
in 2017.
Lotte has long been aggressive not only to advertise “Ghana” chocolates in newspapers, TV commercials, trains, and stations, but also to launch lots of chocolate events and campaigns on Valentine’s Day or Mother’s Day nationwide, and collaborations with retailers, hotels restaurants featuring ‘Ghana’ chocolates.
Due to their marketing efforts, Lotte “Ghana”
brand chocolates could win several awards, e.g. Monde Selection ‘Gold Award’
(2008, 2009, 2010), D2C ‘Marketing Award’ (2002), The Japan Food Journal ‘Long
Seller Award’ (2008), DENTSU ‘Excellent Award’ (2009, 2010, 2011), JR East ‘Excellent
Advertisement Award’’.
Besides, “Ghana” chocolates ranked top in the
brand survey published by Nikkei Research in 2016.
Lotte could eventually achieve registration of the “Ghana” mark on chocolates, but it spent more than five decades to that end.
Interestingly. Lotte has registered the “GANA” mark on goods of class 30 including chocolates since 1990. It must aim to prevent a third party from registering any mark similar to “Ghana”.
The Japan Patent Office recently admitted trademark registration for a three-dimensional shape of digital thermometers ‘MC-670’ and ‘MC-681’ manufactured by Omron Healthcare Co., Ltd. by finding acquired distinctiveness in relation to thermometers (cl.10) under Article 3(2) of the Japan Trademark Law. [Appeal case no. 2019-10386, Gazette issued date: October 29, 2019]
3D shape of the Omron digital thermometer
Omron Healthcare Co., Ltd. filed a trademark solely consisting of three-dimensional shape of its digital thermometers ‘MC-670’ and ‘MC-681’ (see below) in relation to thermometers in class 10 on August 28, 2018. [TM application no. 2018-108289]
JPO examiner entirely rejected the
application on the ground that in general pen-shape digital thermometers have a
similar configuration with the applied mark. If so, it is unlikely that relevant
consumers and traders conceive the shape as a source indicator of the goods. Hence,
the mark is subject to Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law.
Article 3(1)(iii)
is a provision to prohibit any mark from registering where the mark solely
consists of elements just to indicate, in a common manner, the place of origin,
place of sale, quality, raw materials, efficacy, intended purpose, quantity,
shape (including shape of packages), price, the method or time of production or
use.
To dispute the refusal, applicant, Omron
filed an appeal on August 6, 2019.
The Appeal Board affirmed examiner’s
rejection of the 3D shape based on lack of distinctiveness. In the meantime, the
Board granted protection of the 3D shape by finding acquired distinctiveness under
Article 3(2).
Article 3(2)
of the Trademark Law
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph,
a trademark that falls under any of items (iii) to (v) of the preceding
paragraph may be registered if, as a result of the use of the trademark,
consumers are able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a
business of a particular person.
Allegedly Omron has continuously used the
3D shape on its digital thermometers ‘MC-670’ and ‘MC-681’ since November 2004.
Omron holds top-ranked market share (43.9%) of digital thermometers in Japan. ‘MC-670’
and ‘MC-681’ have been sold more than 4million sets over the last decade and maintains
the 2nd market share (8.7%) in 2018.
The Board took a favorable view of the package design to appeal its 3D shape in an impression and conspicuous manner (see below), advertisements and award-winning.
According to the produced interview report, 60% of the interviewees (total of one thousand people who have digital thermometer or use it more than once a year ranging in age from 20 to 69) associated the shape with Omron or its digital thermometers.
Since Omron has been aggressive to stop competitors
using resembled shape on their thermometers, the Board considered that the 3D
shape is distinguishable to achieve its role as a source indicator consequently
even if the “OMRON” mark is represented on the thermometers.
Based on the above findings, the Board held that the 3D shape would be conceived as a source indicator of Omron thermometers and thus registrable based on the acquired distinctiveness under Article 3(2). [TM Registration no. 6197317]
In a dispute of registrability to a unique
three-dimensional shape of giant cotton candy, the Appeal Board of Japan Patent
Office (JPO) refused protection of the 3D mark due to lack of distinctiveness.
[Appeal case no. 2017-9666, Gazette issue date: September 27, 2019]
TOTTI CANDY FACTORY
If you ever visit Harajuku (Tokyo) chances
are you will spot people carrying around gigantic pastel-colored cotton candy. When
you think of cotton candy, a balloon-size blob of sticky blue or pink fluff
probably comes to mind. But this cotton candy is here to rewrite any
preconceptions you have about the treat, because not only does it come in the
most beautiful shades of pastel you’ve ever seen, it’s also legitimately larger
than your head. It’s so big, it’s actually hard to take a cute picture holding
it — because it blocks your entire face with its pretty rainbow hues.
You can find this giant rainbow cotton candy at a sweet shop popular with young people in Harajuku, Totti Candy Factory.
3D shape of the cotton candy was applied
for registration with JPO in respect of confectionery (class 30) on May 20,
2016. [TM application no. 2016-54840]
Registrability of 3D shape mark
The shape of a product can be an important element that generates value for a company. For this reason, the protection of three-dimensional forms is of commercial interest. Three-dimensional trademarks include the shape of a product or its packaging. Prior to 1996, there was no proper statutory provision that recognized three-dimensional shapes as trademarks. 1996 revision to the Trademark Law recognized 3D shape trademarks such as the shape of the packaging and specific product shapes. Now, a Trademark Registration can be attained for any distinctive three-dimensional shapes, that discern the goods or services of one business from those of other businesses, under the Japan Trademark law.
JPO Examination
JPO examiner entirely rejected the 3D shape mark by stating that:
“Appearance of the applied mark in color
can be perceived merely as an ordinary three-dimensional shape of cotton candy.
If so, the shape is deemed equivalent to a configuration solely consisting of
the shape of goods in a common manner to the extent that relevant traders
and/or consumers are unlikely to recognize the shape as a source indicator.
Hence, the mark is subject to Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law. From
the produced evidence, it is questionable whether the shape has acquired distinctiveness
as a result of substantial use.”
Article 3(1)(iii) is a provision to prohibit any mark from registering where the mark
solely consists of elements just to indicate, in a common manner, the place of
origin, place of sale, quality, raw materials, efficacy, intended purpose,
quantity, shape (including shape of packages), price, the method or time of
production or use.
To dispute the refusal, applicant, an owner
of Totti Candy Factory, filed an appeal on June 30, 2017.
Appeal Board’s decision
The Appeal Board affirmed examiner’s rejection
of the 3D shape based on lack of distinctiveness. As grounds for rejection, Board
cited following conical cotton candies in several colors distributed by third
parties.
In addition, the Board negated acquired
distinctiveness of the 3D shape by stating that:
Allegedly applicant has used applied mark on cotton candy since February 2015, however, he failed to produce objective evidence of its first use.
In general, cotton candy is consumed by individuals in a wide age range. If so, three brick-and-mortar shops at Harajuku (Tokyo), Shinsaibashi (Osaka), Nagoya PARCO (Aichi) are insufficient to demonstrate increased publicity among relevant consumers all over the country.
According to the produced sales record, from the period of February 2015 through June 2017 applicant sold 370,302 pieces of Giant Rainbow Cotton Candy, amounting to 200 million JP-yen in total sales. However, its market share remains unclear.
A fact that Totti Giant Cotton Candy has gotten popular with young women in their teens and early 20’s is insufficient to admit acquire distinctiveness of the 3D shape since consumers of cotton candy are not limited to young women.
Advertisement and publications of Giant Rainbow Cotton Candy contains a term “TOTTI CANDY FACTORY” or “Totti” adjacent to the 3D shape. From these evidences, it is questionable whether relevant consumers would conceive the 3D shape in itself as a source indicator of Totti Candy Factory.
Based on the foregoing, the Board
consequently refused to register the mark based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the
Trademark Law.
In March 17, 2017, Japanese jewelry house TASAKI & Co., Ltd., the Japanese leading producer of Akoya pearls, filed an application for trademark registration at the Japan Patent Office (JPO) for the following three-dimensional mark for rings in class 14.
Signature ring featuring a row of five seemingly identical Akoya pearls
Applied mark represents a signature ring featuring a row of five seemingly identical Akoya pearls, one of Tasaki’s bestsellers.
Tasaki commenced sales of the ring in the name of “balancing signature ring” in April, 2010 and has been continuously promoting the sales since then.
JPO Examination/Acquired distinctiveness
The JPO examiner totally refused the mark due to a lack of inherent distinctiveness in relation to rings [jewelery].
Tasaki filed an appeal against the decision and argued acquired distinctiveness of the 3D configuration of the ring arising from uniqueness of its shape and substantial advertisement.
According to the filed evidences to the JPO, Tasaki installed a large signboard for advertisement at busy places, Ginza (Tokyo), Kobe, Osaka and made various promotional activities via internet, direct mails and events. The ring was appeared and published in magazines more than 130 times for the last eight years.
In March 1, 2019, the Appeal Board of JPO granted trademark registration based on Article 3(2) of the Trademark Law by finding acquired distinctiveness of the 3D configuration of the ring as a source indicator of Tasaki regardless of a fact that only 2,242 rings were purchased by consumers in fact .
[Appeal case no. 2018-9531, TM Registration No. 6125506]
Article 3(2) is a provision to allow registration of applied mark if, as a result of substantial use of the mark in fact, consumers are able to connect the mark with a source indicator of designated goods or services.
The Japan IP High Court, in its ruling on November 29, 2018, did not side with Paramount Bed Co., Ltd., a Japanese manufacturer and distributor of medical and nursing care product, who filed an appeal against refusal decision by JPO to TM Application no. 2015-29155 for 3D mark representing the shape of home care bed.
[Case No. Heisei 30 (Gyo-ke) 10060]
3D shape of home care bed
Disputed mark, representing three-dimensional shape of nursing care bed, was filed on March 31, 2015 by designating nursing care bed and mattress in class 20. The Japan Patent Office (JPO) refused the mark due to a lack of distinctiveness.
Paramount Bed argued acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator of Paramount nursing care bed through substantial use of the mark and its unique shape.
According to the argument, Paramount has distributed more than 145,000 sets of nursing care bed and mattress which 3D shape is identical with the applied mark. The company spent USD 2,400,000 to advertise the bed in newspaper and USD 20,000,000 in TV commercial during the past five years. Paramount produced on-line questionnaire results which showed more than 60 % of relevant traders have recognized the shape as a series of Paramount Bed.
IP High Court ruling
The IP High Court dismissed the allegation entirely, stating that the produced evidences are unpersuasive to conclude the 3D shape acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator of Paramount Bed’s business because of below-mentioned reasons.
As long as nursing care beds are likely to be used by general public, questionnaire results answered by traders are insufficient to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness among relevant consumers.
Given the shape of applied mark occasionally appears while nursing care bed is in operation and the bed has coverlet on it in ordinary days, it is questionable whether relevant consumers have perceived the shape of applied mark per se as a source indicator.
Besides, catalogs and advertisements pertinent to Paramount nursing care bed show configurations of the bed other than the shape of applied mark.
Based on the foregoing, the court upheld JPO decision.
The Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) disallowed registration of 3D shape of Mitsubishi Electric’s spiral escalator due to lack of inherent distinctiveness and secondary meaning in relation to escalators, class 7. [Appeal case no. 2017-6855]
Spiral escalator
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation first developed the spiral escalator in 1985, and has been the world’s first and sole manufacturer of spiral escalators. Spiral escalator is a special design type of escalator in the form of a spiral/helical with curved steps.
On May 3, 2016, Mitsubishi Electric filed a trademark application for 3D shape of spiral escalator (see below) by designating escalators in class 7 to the JPO [TM application no. 2016-23374].
The JPO examiner totally refused the application based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law stating that the applied mark can be easily seen as a 3D shape of escalator and the shape does solely consist of a common configuration to achieve the basic function of escalator. If so, the applied mark lacks distinctiveness as a source indicator.
To dispute the refusal, Mitsubishi Electric filed an appeal on May 12, 2017.
Appeal Board’s decision
The Appeal Board, however, upheld the examiner’s decision on the ground and dismissed Mitsubishi’s allegation by stating that relevant consumers and traders shall conceive of an escalator designed to enhance its function or sensuousness at the sight of applied mark.
Acquired distinctiveness
Mitsubishi Electric also argued that even if the applied mark is deemed descriptive in relation to escalators, it shall be registrable based on Article 3(2) due to acquired distinctiveness of the mark because Mitsubishi Electric Spiral Escalators has achieved 100 % market share in the world and continuously used the 3D shape on escalators for more than three decades.
Article 3(2) is a provision to allow registration of applied mark if, as a result of substantial use of the mark in fact, consumers are able to connect the mark with a source indicator of designated goods or services.
Under the totality of the circumstances, the Appeal Board dismissed the allegation as well.
The Board found that regardless of 100 % market share in the category of spiral escalators, Mitsubishi Electric’s domestic supply record of 24 units in the last thirty years shall be a trivial quantity in comparison with total number of escalators in operation. Besides, questionnaire result rather shows a source of the applied mark is unknown to more than 60% of the questionee.
Based on the foregoing, the Board questioned whether applied mark has acquired distinctiveness through actual use in relation to escalators and consequently refused to register the mark based on Article 3(1)(iii) and 3(2) of the Trademark Law.
In October 11, 2016, Kikkoman Corporation, the world’s leading producer of soy sauce, filed an application for trademark registration at the Japan Patent Office (JPO) for the following three-dimensional colored mark for soy sauce in class 30.
Red-capped Kikkoman soy sauce dispenser
Iconic red-capped Kikkoman soy sauce dispenser was introduced in 1961 and has been in continuous production ever since. It was developed by Kenji Ekuan, a Japanese Navy sailor former naval academy student who dedicated his life to design when he left the service. Its unique shape took three years and over a hundred prototypes to perfect, but the teardrop design and dripless spout have become a staple of restaurant condiments all around the world. The bottle’s design hasn’t changed over the past 50 years.
JPO Examination/Acquired distinctiveness
The JPO examiner initially notified her refusal due to a lack of inherent distinctiveness in relation to say sauce.
In a response to the office action, Kikkoman argued acquired distinctiveness of the 3D bottle arising from uniqueness of its shape and substantial use for over five decades.
According to news release from Kikkoman, over 500 million of the bottles have been sold since the design was first introduced and distributed in approximately a hundred countries worldwide. Red-capped Kikkoman soy sauce dispenser has already been registered as 3D mark in US, EU, Ukraine, Norway, Russia, Australia.
In March 30, 2018, the JPO granted trademark registration based on Article 3(2) of the Trademark Law by finding acquired distinctiveness of the 3D color mark as a source indicator of Kikkoman.
[TM Registration No. 6031041]
