カテゴリー: Article 4(1)(vii)

Never Register “BOND GIRL” Never Again

Posted on

In a recent administrative decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Danjaq, LLC, and declared invalidation of a wordmark “BOND GIRL” written in a Japanese katakana character in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law.

[Invalidation case no. 2019-890044, Gazette issued date: April 24, 2020]

Disputed mark

“BOND GIRL” written in a Japanese katakana character (see below) was filed to JPO on the service of ‘arranging, conducting, and organization of seminars’ in class 41 by a Japanese individual on November 4, 2015, and registered on December 2, 2016.

Opposition & Invalidation petition by Danjaq, LLC

On March 9, 2017, just before the lapse of a two-months opposition period, Danjaq, LLC, the holding company responsible for the copyright and trademarks to the characters, elements, and other material related to James Bond on screen, filed an opposition to the disputed mark.

However, since Danjaq failed to supplement arguments for opposition within a statutory period, the JPO decided to dismiss the opposition entirely.

On August 2, 2019, Danjaq filed a petition for invalidation and argued disputed mark shall be invalid in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xv) and (xix) of the Trademark Law by citing world-famous cinematic heroine “BOND GIRL” in the James Bond film series “007”.

Article 4(1)(vii)

Article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law prohibits any mark likely to cause damage to public order or morality from registration.

In the petition, Danjaq argued “BOND GIRL” has appeared as a love interest of James Bond in the movies for over 55 years since 1962. Due to frequent appearances in magazines, other public media, and various events pertinent to the Japes Bond movie, the name and sign of “BOND GIRL” has been well-known for cinematic heroine in association with the film series “007”.

If so, it is presumed that the applicant intentionally applied disputed mark with an aim to monopolize the term. Since the applicant does not have any legal interest with Danjaq, a legitimate owner of trademarks and copyrights pertaining to the 007 movies, it must impermissibly cause not only damage to public order but the disorder in domestic and foreign trade.

Invalidation Board decision

The Invalidation Board initially noted that the James Bond film series “007” is world-widely known motion pictures. From the produced evidence, the cinematic heroine “Bond girl” has regularly attracted audiences through screens, magazines, and promotional events of the movie. The sign “BONG GIRL” had further extensive marketing and licensing to companies in vastly different product categories, not only with products associated with the motion pictures, e.g. nails, cosmetics, dolls, cards, calendars, and others. Relevant consumers at the sight of the disputed mark would conceive nothing but the cinematic heroine in the film. The Board, therefore, considered that “BOND GIRL” has become worldly famous as a cinematic heroine that appeared in the “007” film series.

The Board continued in analyzing efforts made by Danjaq to enhance the commercial value of “BOND GIRL” by means of trademark registrations in various jurisdictions and licensing to different product categories.

The Board finally concluded that taking into account the foregoing, since it appears that the applicant makes less contribution to establishing reputation and goodwill on “BOND GIRL”, it shall be impermissible for the applicant to monopolize the term on service in question.

To prevent damage to public order, the disputed mark shall be retroactively invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii).

In the meantime, surprisingly, the Board denied Danjaq’s allegation regarding a likelihood of confusion because “BOND GIRL” is just famous for cinematic heroine, not as a source indicator of Danjaq.

Adidas defeated in 3-stripe trademark dispute

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) held in an opposition filed by Adidas AG that trademark registration no. 6085087 for horizontal three-stripes (Opposed mark) shall remain as valid as ever and entirely dismissed Adidas’ claims based on its famous three stripes.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900382, Gazette issued on February 28, 2020]

ULTRA MUSIC FESTIVAL

Opposed mark (see below) was applied for registration on October 10, 2017 over clothing, headwear, footwear in class 25, advertisement and promotion of music festival, concert in class 35, arrangement and conducting of musical performances, music festival, concerts in class 41 by Ultra Enterprises Inc., a U.S. business entity organizing outdoor electronic music event “ULTRA MUSIC FESTIVAL (UML)”, and published for registration on October 23, 2018.

Apparently, opposed mark is used as a symbolic logo for Ultra Music Festival’s RESISTANCE set.

Opposition by Adidas

On December 21, 2018, Adidas AG filed an opposition and argued opposed mark is revocable under Article 4(1)(vii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law in relation to its famous three stripes (see below).

Article 4(1)(vii)

Article 4(1)(vii) prohibits any mark likely to offend public order and morals from registering.

Based on a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity to Adidas three stripes, opponent asserted, applicant must have been aware of Adidas three stripes and filed opposed mark with a malicious intention to take advantage of the reputation and credit of opponent’s famous trademark and impair the goodwill embodied on its iconic three stripes.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits to register a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with a business of other entity.

Adidas argued that, from appearance and concept, opposed mark evidently gives rise to a same impression with Adidas three stripes since each stripe of the mark is depicted in the same direction, width and shape, besides a space between stripe also has the same width with the stripe.

Average consumers with an ordinary care of goods/services in question who have been quite familiar with Adidas are likely to associate opposed mark with Adidas’ three-stripes. Inter alia, when opposed mark is used on apparels with a smaller configuration printed in one spot, so-called ‘one-point mark’, it must be difficult for relevant consumers to distinguish opposed mark with Adidas three-stripes because of its resemblance. Besides, goods/services in question are closely related to opponent business, namely sportswear, sports shoes, sports events. If so, it is highly anticipated that relevant consumers would confuse a source of opposed mark with opponent.

JPO Decision

The Opposition Board admitted a high degree of reputation and popularity to Adidas three stripes in relation to sport shoes, sportswear, sports gear at the time of initial filing and registration of opposed mark.

In the meantime, the Board found a low degree of originality of three stripes and similarity between the marks, from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view. The Board stated opposed mark can be perceived as ‘three-stripes’ deployed inside a vertically long rectangle. On the other hand, opponent’s marks consist of ‘three-stripes’ deployed inside a triangle or parallelogram. Even if Adidas three stripes have acquired remarkable reputation, because of a low degree of similarity and the originality, relevant consumers at the sight of opposed mark would not hesitate to consider a source of opposed mark unrelated to Adidas.
Thus, the Board held it is unlikely that relevant consumers confuse or associate opposed mark with Adidas.

The Board also negated opponent’s allegation of ‘one-point mark’ theory by stating that even if average consumers have tendency to pay less attention to details of a mark when used on apparels with smaller configuration, due to dissimilar impression caused by a different outline (vertically long rectangle, triangle, and parallelogram) of respective mark, opposed mark shall be undoubtedly perceived as a distinctive three-stripes unrelated to Adidas by relevant consumers with an ordinary care.

Besides, from the produced evidences, the Board found it was not foreseen a circumstance to offend public order and morals from registering opposed mark and give harmful effect to the international faith.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded opposed mark shall be irrevocable under Article 4(1)(vii) as well as (xv) and granted registration a status quo.

KUMAMON triumphs over bear mascot trademark battle

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Kumamon and declared invalidation of trademark registration no. 5997141 for a bear-like design mark due to a likelihood of confusion with Kumamon.
[Invalidation case no. 2019-890004, Gazette issue date: February 28, 2020]

KUMAMON

Have you ever heard of “Kumamon”?

Nowadays, we are accustomed to see there are many organizations that create and use mascots to further their brands. Kumamon is a cuddly character with its pitch-black fur, red cheeks and white eyes designed as the official mascot (see below) of the Kumamoto Prefecture, a small prefecture in western Japan.

Kumamon made its debut in 2011 as part of a tourism promotion campaign for the Kyushu high-speed railway line. At the time a wave of local municipalities and companies sought to use ‘yuru-kyara’, or ‘relaxing characters’, to promote local products and attractions. Kumamon was hired as a part-time civil servant at Kumamoto before being elevated to sales manager. Such topics generated headlines and helped push Kumamon’s popularity beyond Kumamoto.

As an iconic symbol of ‘relaxing characters’, Kumamon has become a social and cultural phenomenon nationwide. Sales of goods using the Kumamon mascot topped 150 billion yen ($1.4 billion) in 2018.

To protect and promote the mascot, the Kumamoto Prefecture has registered its figurative image reproduced in 2D for various classed of goods and services in Japan as well as neighboring countries.

Disputed Mark

On March 21, 2017, Unique Design Company Limited (Belize) , sought to register the mark consisting of a bear-like design and three Chinese characters “熊本熊” which mean Kumamoto’s bear (see below) to be used on goods in class 11. The JPO granted protection of opposed mark on October 27, 2017.

Invalidation Trial

To challenge the validity of disputed mark, on January 25, 2019, the Kumamoto Prefecture filed an invalidation action to the JPO based on Article 4(1)(vi), (vii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law. Kumamoto Prefecture argued that the figurative element of disputed mark closely resembles to the Kumamon character well-known for the official mascot of the Kumamoto Prefecture from appearance. Besides, the literal element of disputed mark gives rise to a similar meaning related to the Kumamoto Prefecture and Kumamon. If so, disputed mark as a whole shall be invalid due to a likelihood of confusion with Kumamon.

JPO Decision

The Invalidation Board of JPO found that:

  1. Unquestionably, Kumamon has acquired a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity nationwide as the official mascot of the Kumamoto Prefecture well before the filing date of disputed mark through continuous activities, promotions, and actual use on various goods since 2011. In addition, it becomes public among relevant consumers that the literal element of disputed mark “熊本熊” gets to be known as a Chinese name of Kumamon in China and neighboring countries.
  2. Since Kumamon has distinctive features visually different from wild bear, the mascot shall be deemed unique, creative, and impressive in itself.
  3. From appearance the bear-like design of disputed mark is confusingly similar to Kumamon. It gives rise to a similar meaning to Kumamon, the mascot originated from bear in the Kumamoto Prefecture. Likewise, the literal element of disputed mark gives rise to the same meaning. If so, both marks are considered highly similar.
  4. Due to free-use policy for brand promotion to domestic merchants (Kumamoto lets domestic companies use the character for free, but charges a license fee of a few percent on product sales by foreign companies), Kumamon mascot has been commercially used on wide range of goods over 10,000 items. 7-year cumulative sales exceed 510 billion JP-yen. If so, disputed goods in class 11, e.g. oil stoves, heaters, pocket warmers, electric foot warmers, shall be closely associated with the Kumamon goods in channels and consumers.

Based on the above findings, the Board concluded that relevant consumers and traders are likely to confuse disputed mark with Kumamon or misconceive a source from any entity systematically or economically connected with the Kumamoto Prefecture. Thus, disputed mark shall be invalidated in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

Trademark Battle – PUMA vs KUMA

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to invalidate trademark registration no. 5661816 for a stylized word “KUMA”, which means ‘bear’ in Japanese, due to similarity to, and a likelihood of confusion with a world-renowned sports brand, PUMA. [Invalidation case no. 2019-890021, Gazette issue date: January 31,2020]

KUMA mark

Disputed mark (see below),consisting of a stylized word “KUMA” with a partial island shape of Hokkaido, Japan’s most northerly main island, depicted on the inside of letter “U”, was filed on October 24, 2013 by a Japanese business entity having its principal place of business in Hokkaido over various goods in class 25 including sportswear and shoes.

It was found Applicant has used the KUMA mark on T-shirts and other goods with a bear silhouette facing left in the upper right of the mark.

The JPO admitted registration on April 4, 2014 and published for opposition on May 13, 2014.

PUMA’s Opposition / Invalidation Trial

On June 13, 2014, PUMA SE filed an opposition against the KUMA mark based on Article 4(1)(vii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law. PUMA argued relevant consumers or traders are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of disputed mark with PUMA when used on designated goods in class 25 because of a high reputation and close resemblance between PUMA word logo and the KUMA mark.

The Opposition Board admitted a high degree of popularity and reputation of PUMA word logo, however, Board dismissed the opposition entirely due to unlikelihood of confusion because of a low degree of similarity between the marks (Opposition case no. 2014-900177).

Subsequently, PUMA SE entrusted the case to us. On April 3, 2019, just one day before the lapse of five-year Statute of limitations, MARKS IP LAW FIRM on behalf of PUMA SE requested for an invalidation trial and challenged invalidating the KUMA mark based on Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japanese Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law prohibits any mark likely to cause damage to public order or morality from registration.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to refrain from registering a junior mark which is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark on identical or similar goods/service.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits to register a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with a business of other entity.

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

Invalidation Decision

The Invalidation Board reversed the opposition decision and decided in favor of PUMA on all grounds by finding that:

  1. PUMA word logo has been continuously well-known in Japan for a source indicator of PUMA in connection with sports shoes, sportswear and others among relevant consumers and traders.
  2. A mere difference on initial letter of both marks and the Hokkaido island shape shall be insufficient to overturn an overall impression of the mark from visual and phonetic points of view. Conceptually, the KUMA mark, having a meaning of bears in Japanese, would give rise to a similar meaning with PUMA word logo, four-footed mammal. If so, by taking into consideration a high degree of reputation and popularity of PUMA word logo, both marks shall be deemed similar.
  3. Configuration of PUMA word logo looks unique, creative, and impressive in itself.
  4. Besides, given close association between designated goods in class 25 and PUMA’s business, relevant consumers of the goods in question with an ordinary care are likely to confuse its source with PUMA.
  5. It has good reasons to believe that the applicant of disputed mark did fraudulently apply the KUMA mark for registration with an aim to free-ride and dilute PUMA’s goodwill based on totality of the circumstances.
  6. If so, applicant must have filed disputed mark with a malicious intention to dilute or do harm to PUMA’s goodwill, which was impermissible to protect public order and morals

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to invalidate the KUMA mark based on Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) as well as 4(1)(xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Rothschild Lost Trademark Opposition in Japan

Posted on

In a recent trademark opposition, the Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Baron Philippe de Rothschild S.A. (Rothschild) against trademark registration no. 6090508 for word mark “MOUTON” in relation to restaurant service due to unlikelihood of confusion with the fabled French winery “Château Mouton Rothschild”.
[Opposition case no. 2019-900012, Gazette issued date: September 7, 2019]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark, consisting of a word mark “MOUTON” in standard character, was filed in the name of Kabushiki Kaisha Waltz, a Japanese company deploying in business field of bars and restaurants.

The mark was filed to JPO on November 17, 2017. Going through substantive examination, JPO admitted registration in relation to “restaurant service” in class 43 and “wholesale and retail services for non-alcoholic beverages and foods” in class 35, and published for opposition on November 13, 2018.

Opposition by Rothschild

On January 15, 2019, Baron Philippe de Rothschild S.A. filed an opposition and argued opposed mark shall be revocable under Article 4(1)(vii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing its wine brand “Château Mouton Rothschild”.

Article 4(1)(vii)

Article 4(1)(vii) prohibits any mark likely to offend public order and morals from registering.
Trademark Examination Guidelines set forth criteria for the article and examples.
Among others, “Trademarks whose registration is contrary to the order predetermined under the Trademark Act and is utterly unacceptable for lack of social reasonableness in the background to the filing of an application for trademark registration.”

Based on a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity to “Château Mouton Rothschild”, Rothschild asserted, applicant must have been aware of the wine brand and filed opposed mark with a malicious intention to take advantage of the reputation and credit of opponent’s famous trademark and impair the goodwill embodied on its brand.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits to register a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with a business of other entity.

Rothschild argued that opponent has used the mark “Château Mouton Rothschild”on wines from Pauillac in the Médoc region which became Premier Grand Cru in 1973, and thus part of a limited list since there are only 5 Premiers Grands Crus from the region. It is doubtless that “Château Mouton Rothschild” and its abbreviation “MOUTON” have acquired a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity as a source indicator of opponent wines. If so, relevant consumers and traders of restaurant service are likely to misconceive or associate opposed mark with famous wine brand of opponent.

Opposition decision

The Opposition Board admitted a certain degree of reputation and popularity to “Château Mouton Rothschild” as a source indicator of opponent among traders and wine lovers, however, questioned whether the wine brand has become famous among general consumers. Besides, from the produced evidences, the Board was not convinced that “MOUTON” has been known as an abbreviation of “Château Mouton Rothschild”.
In the assessment of the similarity between two marks, the Board found a low degree of similarity between opposed mark and “Château Mouton Rothschild” from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view. If so, even if wine and restaurant service are associated, it is unlikely that average consumers confuse or associate opposed mark with Rothschild.

Also, the Board found it was not foreseen a circumstance to offend public order and morals from registering opposed mark and give harmful effect to the international faith provided that “MOUTON” is a dictionary word meaning ‘processed sheepskin that has been sheared and dyed to resemble beaver or seal’.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded opposed mark shall not be revocable under Article 4(1)(vii) as well as (xv) and granted registration a status quo.

Failed Opposition by Apple against trademark registration “EYE PHONE”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by the U.S. tech giant, Apple Inc. against trademark registration no. 6099794 for word mark “EYE PHONE” in class 9 by finding less likelihood of confusion with Apple “iPhone”.
[Opposition case no. 2019-900030, Gazette issue date: September 27, 2019]

“EYE PHONE”

Opposed mark, a word mark “EYE PHONE” in standard character, was filed by a Japanese business entity, NOVELTY EYE-WEAR Inc., on February 26, 2018 by designating ‘spectacles [eyeglasses and goggles]’ in class 9.

The JPO admitted registration on November 22, 2018 and published for registration on December 18, 2018.

APPLE’s Opposition

To oppose against registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Apple Inc. filed an opposition on January 28, 2019.

In the opposition brief, Apple Inc. asserted the opposed mark shall be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(vii), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law given a remarkable reputation of opponent mark “iPhone” to indicate opponent’s smart phones currently holding a 44.1% market share in Japan and close resemblance between “iPhone” and “EYE PHONE”.

Apple Inc. argued opposed mark “EYE PHONE” has the same pronunciation with “iPhone” and gives a similar impression in appearance. If so, both marks shall be confusingly similar. Besides, the goods in question are closely related to smart phones since smartphone users get to wear specific glasses for smartphone to block blue light. Recently, smart glasses, wearable device that brings with suitable technology a computer screen/display in front of a person’s eye, have become a hot topic.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entity’s well-known goods or services, to the benefit of brand owner and consumers.

Board Decision

The Opposition Board admitted a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity of opponent trademark “iPhone” in connection with smart phones based on the produced evidences boasting the top market share consecutively for the past seven years in Japan.

Meanwhile, the Board found a low degree of originality of “iPhone” given a combination of alphabetical letter “i” and descriptive term “Phone” in relation to smartphones.

In the assessment of mark, the Board held “EYE PHONE” and “iPhone” are dissimilar even if both marks have the same pronunciation since they are sufficiently distinguishable from visual and conceptual point of view. Also, the Board negated close relation between glasses and smartphones in view of its nature, purpose, usage, distribution channel and consumers.

If so, it is unlikely that the consumers confuse or misconceive a source of opposed mark with Apple Inc. or any entity systematically or economically connected with opponent.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided opposed mark shall not be cancelled on the grounds of Article 4(1)(vii), (xv) and (xix).

Adidas unsuccessful in an attempt to prevent trademark protection for two-stripes

Posted on

The Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) held in an opposition filed by Adidas AG that trademark registration no. 6016240 for two-stripes device (Opposed mark) shall remain as valid as ever and entirely dismissed Adidas’ claims based on its famous three stripes.[Opposition case no. 2018-900100, Gazette issued on August 30, 2019]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark (see below) was applied for registration on June 16, 2016 over shoes in class 25 by Marubeni Footwear, a Japanese business entity, and published for registration on February 27, 2018.

Opposition by Adidas

On April 24, 2018, Adidas AG filed an opposition and argued opposed mark is revocable under Article 4(1)(vii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law in relation to its famous three stripes (see below).

Article 4(1)(vii)

Article 4(1)(vii) prohibits any mark likely to offend public order and morals from registering.

Trademark Examination Guidelines set forth criteria for the article and examples.
Among others, “Trademarks whose registration is contrary to the order predetermined under the Trademark Act and is utterly unacceptable for lack of social reasonableness in the background to the filing of an application for trademark registration.”

Based on a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity to Adidas three stripes, opponent asserted, applicant must have been aware of Adidas three stripes and filed opposed mark with a malicious intention to take advantage of the reputation and credit of opponent’s famous trademark and impair the goodwill embodied on its iconic three stripes.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits to register a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with a business of other entity.

Adidas argued that, from appearance, opposed mark evidently gives rise to a same impression with Adidas three stripes since each stripe of the mark is depicted in the same direction, width and shape, besides a space between stripe also has the same width with the stripe.

Given opponent mark has been substantially used in various colors, length, and configurations, average consumers with an ordinary care of shoes who have been quite familiar with Adidas are likely to associate opposed mark with Adidas’ three-stripes. Inter alia, when each stripe of opposed mark is used in different color on side upper sole and a space between the stripes (upper sole fabric) has other color, and thus opposed mark looks like depicting three stripes on shoes, it is highly anticipated that relevant consumers would confuse its source with opponent.

Opposition decision

The Opposition Board admitted a high degree of reputation and popularity to Adidas three stripes in relation to sport shoes, sportswear, sports gear at the time of initial filing and registration of opposed mark.

In the meantime, the Board found a low degree of originality of three stripes and similarity between the marks, from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view since opposed mark can be clearly perceived as ‘two-stripes’. Even if Adidas three stripes has acquired remarkable reputation, average consumers of sports shoes would not mistake two stripes for three stripes in purchasing shoes with opposed mark.
If so, the Board believes it is unlikely that relevant consumers confuse or associate opposed mark with Adidas.

The Board also negated opponent’s allegation of a possible ‘three-stripes’ appearance under specific color combination by stating that opposed mark is nothing but a two-stripes design mark. The space in between two stripes does not constitute opposed mark. If so, the allegation shall be irrelevant to the case.

Besides, from the produced evidences, the Board found it was not foreseen a circumstance to offend public order and morals from registering opposed mark and give harmful effect to the international faith.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded opposed mark shall not be revocable under Article 4(1)(vii) as well as (xv) and granted registration a status quo.

PUMA’s Fight Against Logo Parody

Posted on

On August 1, 2019, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to invalidate trademark registration no. 5861923 for composite mark consisting of a word “KUMA”, which means ‘bear’ in Japanese, and the bear device by finding a likelihood of confusion with a world-renowned sports brand, PUMA and detrimental effect to public policy or morality.
[Invalidation case no. 2019-890001]

KUMA device mark

Disputed mark (see below) was filed on January 7, 2016 by a Japanese business entity in Hokkaido, Japan’s most northerly main island, an otherworldly volcanic land with eastern Asia’s highest concentration of brown bears, over various goods in class 25 including sportswear and shoes.

Precedently, applicant applied for registration of following trademarks, consist of four alphabets in bold font and an animal silhouette facing left depicted in the upper right of the alphabets, on goods in classes 9, 14, 16, 24, 25 and 28, but in vain.

“UUMA” means ‘horse’, “BUTA” means ‘pig’, “KUMA” means ‘bear’ in Japanese. It is obvious that both literal element and figurative element of respective mark give rise to a same meaning, which is the same for PUMA.

It is likely the applicant intended to use these marks on souvenirs from Hokkaido since we get accustomed to see scenes at a famous tourist spot that T-shirts and other small items displayed at gift shops parody famous brands by featuring local specialty to attract tourists for fun.

PUMA’s Opposition / Invalidation Trial

On September 26, 2016, PUMA SE filed an opposition against the KUMA mark based on Article 4(1)(vii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law. PUMA argued relevant consumers or traders are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of disputed mark with PUMA when used on designated goods in class 25 because of a high reputation and close resemblance between PUMA logo and the KUMA mark.

The Opposition Board admitted a high degree of popularity and reputation of PUMA logo, however, the Board dismissed the opposition entirely due to unlikelihood of confusion as a result of low degree of similarity between the marks (Opposition case no. 2016-900308).

Subsequently, PUMA SE entrusted the case to MARKS IP LAW FIRM. On New Year’s Eve of 2018, MARKS IP LAW FIRM on behalf of PUMA SE requested for an invalidation trial and sought to annul the KUMA mark on the same grounds.

Invalidation Decision

The Invalidation Board reversed the opposition decision and decided in favor of PUMA by finding that:

  1. PUMA logo has been continuously famous as a source indicator of PUMA in connection with sports shoes, sportswear and others among relevant consumers and traders in Japan.
  2. Configuration of PUMA logo looks unique, creative, and impressive in itself.
  3. Regardless of visual difference in detail between the marks, overall impression of both marks is quite similar.
  4. Given close association between designated goods in class 25 and PUMA business, relevant consumers of the goods with an ordinary care are likely to confuse its source with PUMA
  5. Besides, it is presumed the current registrant of disputed mark was knowingly assigned a similar KUMA mark that applicant had a fraudulent intent to free-ride and dilute PUMA’s goodwill.
  6. If so, current registrant must have filed disputed mark with a fraudulent intention to dilute or do harm to PUMA’s goodwill given a close resemblance of between disputed mark and a rejected KUMA mark (see above right).

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to invalidate disputed marks based on Article 4(1)(xv) as well as 4(1)(vii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Trademark dispute over Shogun Emblem of the Samurai Era

Posted on

In a recent appeal trial over trademark dispute, the Trademark Appeal Board within the Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the Examiner’s determination and held that a combination mark with Tokugawa crest image and literal elements written in Chinese characters is dissimilar to, and unlikely to cause confusion with a senior trademark registration for the “TOKUGAWA CREST” device mark in connection with pickled plums of class 29.
[Appeal case no. 2018-6893, Gazette issue date: March 29, 2019]

 

TOKUGAWA CREST

The Tokugawa clan was the family that established the Edo shogunate, also known as the Tokugawa shogunate, (1603–1867), the final period of traditional Japan, a time of internal peace, political stability, and economic growth under the shogunate (military dictatorship) founded by Tokugawa Ieyasu. The Tokugawa shogunate continued to rule Japan for a remarkable 250 years and ended in 1868, with the Meiji Restoration when the Emperor regained power.

The Tokugawa crest was a circle in closing three leaves of the awoi (a species of mallow, found in Central Japan) joined at the tips, the stalks touching the circle (see below).

This gilded trefoil is gleaming on the property of the shogun and mausoleum even now in Japan.

 

YUME-AWOI

Kabushiki Kaisha Kiwa-Nouen Products, a Japanese merchant dealing with plums and its products filed a trademark application for a combination mark with Tokugawa crest image and literal elements written in Chinese characters (see below) covering pickled plums in class 29 on June 21, 2016 [TM application no. 2016-72127].

Three Chinese characters “紀州梅” in the upper right of the mark lacks distinctive since the term means plums made in Kishu, the name of a province in feudal Japan (the area corresponds to nowadays Wakayama Prefecture and southern Mie Prefecture), as a whole. Two characters “夢葵” in the center of the mark to be pronounces as “yume-awoi” is obviously a coined word and distinctive in relation to pickled plums.

The mark is actually in use on high-class pickled plums produced by applicant.

Tokugawa Museum

Going through substantive examination by the JPO examiner, applied mark was totally refused registration based on Article 4(1)(vi), (vii), (xv) of the Trademark Law on the ground that the mark contains a device resembling the Tokugawa crest which becomes famous as a source indicator of ‘Public Interest Incorporated Foundation The Tokugawa Museum’.
If so, using the mark on the designated goods by an unauthorized entity may free-ride goodwill vested in the Tokugawa crest and anything but conductive to the public interest. Besides, relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive pickled plums using applied mark with goods from The Tokugawa Museum or any business entity systematically or economically connected with the museum.

Article 4(1)(vi) is a provision to refuse any mark which is identical with, or similar to, a famous mark indicating the State, a local government, an agency thereof, a non-profit organization undertaking a business for public interest, or a non-profit enterprise undertaking a business for public interest.

Article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law prohibits any mark likely to cause damage to public order or morality from registration.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entity’s well-known goods or services, to the benefit of brand owner and users’ benefits.

 

Applicant filed an appeal against the refusal on May 21, 2018 and argued dissimilarity of the marks.

 

Appeal Board decision

The Board reversed the examiner’s refusal and admitted applied mark to registration by stating that:

It becomes trade practice to print family crest on the packaging of food products. Especially, trefoil awoi crest has been commonly used on the packaging of specialty products or souvenir from Aichi (Owari), Wakayama (Kishu) and Ibaragi (Mito) Prefectures where descendants from clan founder Tokugawa Ieyasu’s three youngest sons governed during the Edo shogunate. Besides, from appearance, Tokugawa crest image in applied mark looks like a background pattern and thus relevant consumers are unlikely to aware that the pattern serves the legally defined role of a trademark because the image is colored washier than literal elements. If so, two Chinese characters “夢葵” of the mark functions primarily as a source indicator.

Based on the foregoing, the Board considered, given the Tokugawa crest image in the applied mark does not play a role of source indicator at all, both marks are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion from visual, phonetic and conceptual points of view even if the Tokugawa crest becomes famous as a source indicator of Public Interest Incorporated Foundation The Tokugawa Museum in fact. Likewise, the Board found no specific reason to cause damage to public order or morality from applied mark.

GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION BOURBON LOSES TRADEMARK OPPOSITION

Posted on

In a recent decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) has dismissed the opposition filed by Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), a US non-profit organization which represents the interests of producers and traders of spirit drinks, including Bourbon whiskey, against trademark registration no. 5927252 for the word mark “ROYCE’ BOURBON” for bourbon whiskey in class 33.

[Opposition case no. 2017-900181, Gazette issued on March 29, 2019]

 

ROYCE’ BOURBON

Opposed mark (see below) is a combination of “ROYCE” with apostrophe and “BOURBON” written in a plain roman type.

ROYCE’ BOURBON was filed in January 25, 2016 by a Japanese confectionery company, ROYCE’ Confect Co., Ltd., headquartered in Hokkaido, for bourbon whiskey in class 33.

JPO, going through substantive examination, admitted registration and published for opposition on April 4, 2017.

 

TRADEMARK OPPOSITION

On June 2, 2019, before the lapse of a two-months opposition period, DISCUS filed an opposition, arguing that the word ‘BOURBON’ in the mark applied for would allow consumers to establish a link between the geographical indication Bourbon and “bourbon whiskey”. Therefore, the use and registration of the mark by unrelated entity to Bourbon County, Kentucky (USA) would dilute and exploit the reputation of the geographical indication [Bourbon]. Opposed mark shall be prohibited from registration based on Article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law as well as Article 4(1)(xvi) since the mark is likely to offend public order and cause misconception in quality.

 

BOARD DECISION

The Board admitted Bourbon is an indication of origin/geographical indication from the United States to represent an American Whiskey produced mainly in the southern part of Kentucky State. However, the Board considered opposed mark shall neither offend public order nor cause misconception in quality, stating that:

To the extent opposed mark just covers “bourbon whiskey”, appropriate use of the mark would not disorder fair deal and international trade practice. If so, the Board finds no clue to conclude the applicant adopted the mark with intentions to free ride the reputation of the geographical indication [Bourbon].

Likewise, as long as the Bourbon denomination may be used only for products manufactured in Kentucky by regulations, the designated goods “bourbon whisky” is unquestionably from the US. If so, opposed mark ROYCE’ BOURBON would not cause qualitative misconception in the minds of relevant consumers in relation to “bourbon whiskey” at all.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided opposed mark shall not be objectionable under Article 4(1)(vii) and (xvi), and granted registration a status quo.