カテゴリー: Article 4(1)(x)

Huda Kattan failed to take back trademark HUDABEAUTY

Posted on

In a trademark opposition against TM Reg no. 6204338 for the stylized “HUDABEAUTY” mark in class 3, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the opposition claimed by Huda Kattan due to insufficient famousness of trademark “HUDA BEAUTY” as a source indicator of a beauty mogul “Huda Kattan”.

[Opposition case no. 2020-900049, Gazette issued date: September 24, 2021]

Opposed mark

A Chinese company filed the stylized “HUDABEAUTY” mark (see below) on cosmetics; lotions; facial creams; lips; hand-cleaners; eye-shadows; whitening creams and other goods in class 3 with the JPO on November 22, 2018.

The JPO granted protection of the opposed mark on November 26, 2019, and published for opposition on January 7, 2020. [TM Reg. 6204338]

Opposition by Huda Kattan

On January 10, 2020, three days after the publishment of the opposed mark, Huda Kattan applied the same mark for use on cosmetics, perfumes, and fragrances in class 3 with the JPO and filed an opposition against TM Reg no. 6204338 on February 21, 2020.

The opponent argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xv) and (xix) of the Trademark Law because the opposed mark is completely identical with the stylized “HUDABEAUTY” mark that has acquired a substantial reputation and popularity as a source indicator of cosmetics line launched by famous beauty blogger “Huda Kattan” among relevant consumers at the filing date of the opposed mark.

In bolstering the famousness of the opponent mark, the opponent alleged the founder, Kattan, achieved popularity on Instagram, attaining more than 47 million followers as of 2020. Huda is ranked #1 on the “2017 Influencer Instagram Rich List” and was declared one of the “ten most powerful influencers in the world of beauty” and “The Richest Self-Made Women and one of the Top Three Beauty Influencers ” by Forbes magazine. She was chosen as one of “The 25 Most Influential People on the Internet” by Time magazine in 2017.

Internet search does not reveal any goods of the opposed party. Meanwhile, the opponent’s “HUDABEAUTY” cosmetics are available at Amazon Japan and other online platforms for domestic consumers.

JPO decision

Astonishingly, the JPO Opposition Board did not admit the famousness of the “HUDABEAUTY” mark as a source indicator of Huda Kattan by stating that:

  1. It is unclear if the merchants promoting “HUDABEAUTY” cosmetics at Amazon Japan and other online platforms are licensed distributor.
  2. Produced invoices to demonstrate the actual sale of opponent’s goods to Japanese consumers are irrelevant because these are issued on a date after the registration of the opposed mark.
  3. Even though the opponent and Huda Kattan make good use of SNS and have a very high number of followers and been awarded as a beauty influencer, the Board can’t find reasonable grounds to believe from these facts the opponent mark has acquired a certain degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers in Japan.
  4. The opponent did not produce any evidence to demonstrate sales amount, publication, and advertisement in Japan.

Since it is one of the requisites in applying Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xv), and (xix) to have a certain degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers before the filing date of the opposed mark, regardless of the close duplication, the Board decided to dismiss the opposition entirely and allowed registration of the opposed mark as it is.

This case teaches us how significant to be a “first-filer” in registering and protecting trademarks in Japan.

Famous mark Protection under Trademark Law

Posted on

Japan is a rigid “first-to-file” jurisdiction, meaning that it is necessary to register a trademark in order to obtain proprietary rights over it in principle. Prior use of the trademark is insufficient to be protected under the Trademark Law. The only meaningful exception to this rule is the treatment of so-called famous trademarks even if they have not been filed yet. But it should note owners of famous trademarks can’t file an infringement lawsuit based on the trademark right without registration in Japan. The Trademark Law provides special provisions to protect the famous trademarks. However, the statute never refers to the “famous” mark. It only refers to “recognized” marks, “widely recognized” marks, and “highly recognized” marks.

Relative grounds for refusal, opposition, invalidation

Like other jurisdictions, the Japan Trademark Law prohibits registration of junior marks which are the same as or similar to senior marks that are effectively registered in Japan under Article 4(1)(xi). In order to provide broader protection of famous trademarks, the Law stipulates extra grounds for refusal, opposition, and invalidation on Article 4(1)(x), (xv), (xix).

Article 4(1)(x)

Trademarks that are the same as or similar to trademarks that are widely recognized by consumers as marks indicating the goods or services of another and are used on the same goods or services or similar to those of the other party may not be registered.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Trademarks that are likely to cause confusion in connection with the goods or services related to another’s business may not be registered.

Article 4(1)(xix)

Trademarks which are the same as or similar to trademarks that are widely recognized among consumers either in Japan or in foreign countries as identifying the goods or services related to another’s business and are used for illicit purposes such as trading off the goodwill of another or causing damage to another may not be registered.

These articles spotlight that the Japan Trademark Law considers (1) “similarity” as a most critical issue to determine the scope of protection to famous trademark and (2) “likelihood of confusion” as other legal concepts different from “similarity”.

Defensive mark

A famous trademark may be registered as a defensive mark to cover other identified goods or services than those listed in the original registration under Article 64. These additional goods or services need to be dissimilar to the original goods or services and the registrant needs to prove (1) that the mark is “widely recognized by consumers” and (2) that confusion is likely if the mark is used on these additional goods or services by a third party.

Noteworthy is that defensive mark registration would not be vulnerable to non-use cancellation. Besides, the registrant is entitled to take action against a third party for trademark infringement even if the mark was used on the goods or services that are remotely associated with his business.

Prior use rights

As stated above, a mere prior use is insufficient to be protected under the Trademark Law. Prior user is entitled to defense for trademark infringement only where the mark is “widely recognized by consumers” as identifying the goods or services of the prior user at the filing date of initial trademark application by the registrant under Article 32.

Enforcement/Infringement

Unauthorized use of the mark that is the same as or similar to the registered mark constitutes trademark infringement under Articles 25 and 37(i).

As a matter of law, the Trademark Law does not provide broader protection of famous trademarks in enforcement. No specific provision is given to prohibit famous trademark dilution and parody. There is a considerable gray zone in the Trademark Law when it comes to the unauthorized use of “non-similar” marks that are likely to cause confusion with famous trademarks.

Failed Opposition by Longines over Winged Hourglass logo mark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by Swiss luxury watchmaker, Longines Watch Co., Francillon Ltd., against Japanese trademark registration no. 6165986 by finding dissimilarity to Longine winged hourglass logo.
[Opposition case no. 2019-900301, Gazette issued date: August 27, 2021]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark, consisting of a winged device (see below right), was filed by a Chinese undertaking on July 11, 2018, for use on jewelry, clocks, watches, chronometers, and other goods in class 14.

The JPO admitted registration of the opposed mark on July 26, 2019, and published for post-grant opposition on August 20, 2019.

Opposition by Longines

To oppose against registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Compagnie des Montres Longines, Francillon S.A. filed an opposition on October 18, 2019.

In the opposition brief, Longines asserted the opposed mark shall be retroactively canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), and (xix) of Japan Trademark Law due to a resemblance to Longine’s famed winged hourglass logo (see above left).

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

Article 4(1)(x) prohibits registering a trademark that is identical with, or similar to, other entity’s well-known mark over goods or services closely related to the entity’s business.

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

Article 4(1)(xix) prohibits registering a mark that is identical with, or similar to, another entity’s famous mark, with an aim to gain unfair profits, or cause damage to the entity, even if goods or services sought for registration are unrelated to the entity’s business.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board did admit a certain degree of the reputation of wordmark “LONGINES” from the produced evidence. In the meantime, the Board questioned if the winged hourglass logo per se has acquired a similar degree of reputation as a source indicator of the opponent’s watches by stating that the logo has been always used in conjunction with or adjacent to the LONGINES mark.

Besides, the Board considered both marks dissimilar as a whole from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view. The cited mark consists of an hourglass and straight wings. The opposed mark consists of geometrical figures conceived as a human body and spread wing. Taking account of distinctions in appearance, the Board has reasonable ground to believe that relevant consumers would be unlikely to confuse a source of the opposed mark with Longines when used on the goods in question.

Due to a low degree of similarity and popularity, the Board did not find a reasonable doubt that the opposed mark was sought for registration with an aim to obtain unfair profits from Longines and disorder public interest and morality from the totality of the circumstances.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to dismiss the opposition entirely and found opposed mark shall not be canceled under Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), and (xix).

JPO found likelihood of confusion between SONY and SONICODE

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office sided with Sony Corporation and declared invalidation of TM Registration no. 5764615 for wordmark “SONICODE” due to a likelihood of confusion with “SONY”.

[Invalidation case no. 2020-890039, Gazette issued date: July 30, 2021]

SONICODE

Field System Inc., a mobile application developer, applied wordmark “SONICODE” in standard character for registration on various goods including telecommunication apparatus, electronic machines, consumer video game programs, and its related services in class 9, 38, and 41 with the JPO on December 12, 2014 (TM App no. 2014-105218).

The mark did not face any refusal during the substantive examination and it was registered on date May 15, 2015.

Apparently, the mark has been used on mobile applications for smartphones.

SONY

SONY CORPORATION, a major Japanese manufacturer of consumer electronics products, filed an opposition against the SONICODE mark on August 5, 2015, before the lapse of a two-month statutory period for the opposition, in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law. However, the JPO Opposition Board found both marks dissimilar and no likelihood of confusion between the marks SONY and SONICODE and dismissed SONY’s allegations entirely. [Opposition case no. 2015-900260]

On May 12, 2020, just three days before the lapse of the five-year statute of limitations, SONY CORPORATION files a petition for invalidation and alleged that the contested mark shall be invalidated based on Article 4(1)(x), (xi), (xv).

SONY argued that relevant consumers would conceive SONY at the sight of the contested mark SONICODE because of a high reputation of SONY and less distinctiveness of the term “CODE” in relation to the goods and services in question.

To bolster the arguments, SONY demonstrated how AI speakers, e.g., Amazon Alexa, Google Assist, Microsoft Cortana, Apple Siri, reacted to hear “SONICODE”. Allegedly, the AI speakers recognized it as ‘SONY code’ or ‘SONY cord’ and displayed information relating to SONY.

Field System Inc. did neither answer to the petition nor dispute at all during the invalidation procedure.

JPO decision

The JPO Invalidation Board did not question a remarkable degree of reputation, popularity, and originality of “SONY” as a source indicator of the opponent’s business and its products (telecommunication apparatus, electronic machines, consumer video game programs).

Besides, the Board found the prefix “SONI” of the contested mark gives rise to a similar appearance and pronunciation with “SONY”. Relevant consumers are likely to consider that the contested mark consists of “SONI” and “CODE”. If so, even if both marks are deemed dissimilar in their entirety, the Board has good reason to believe “SONICODE” has a certain degree of similarity to “SONY”.

In view of a close association between the goods and services in question and the opponent business, the Board concluded the contested mark shall be retroactively invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv). In the meantime, because of the dissimilarity of the marks, the Board dismissed allegations based on Article 4(1)(x) and (xi).

Coffee Trademark Battle

Posted on

Colombian Coffee Federation (FNC) failed a fight for invalidation of Japanese TM Registration no. 5901554 for word mark “EMERALD” in class 30 owned by The Coca-Cola Company, one of the world’s largest beverage company in the US.
[Invalidation case no. 2018-890017, Gazette issued date: August 28, 2020]

EMERALD MOUNTAIN

Emerald Mountain is a top brand name of Colombian coffee approved by FNC (NGO organization, the union of coffee producer established in 1927 joining over 560,000 members for enhancing quality, production, and export) guaranteed hand-picked and hand-screened beans of which quantity is only 3 –1% of the total production of Colombia coffee beans.

The FNC owns several trademark registrations for “EMERALD MOUNTAIN” in Japan.

In the early 90s, Emerald Mountain began to be sold by Coca-Cola as canned liquid coffee under the Georgia brand in thousands of vending machines across Japan. Since 1997 it has become the most sold coffee in Japanese history as well as the #1 beverage sold by Coca-Cola in Japan. Every can of Georgia Emerald Mountain coffee has an explanation of the Colombian origin of the coffee as well as the high-quality certification of the FNCS. With annual sales of more than 630 million cans, Georgia Emerald Mountain Blend is undoubtedly Emerald Mountain’s leading product within the Japanese market.

EMERALD

Irrespective of a long-standing relationship, The Coca Cola Company, in 2011, sought registration for a wordmark “EMERALD” over artificial coffee, coffee-based beverages, prepared coffee and cocoa, tea, ice in class 30 which confronted with a severe objection from FNC.

FNC was successful in removing the registration by means of a non-use cancellation in 2017. However, The Coca Cola Company deliberately filed a new trademark application for the same mark in 2015 immediately when the registered mark was vulnerable for cancellation on grounds of non-use. The JPO allowed registration of the new application in December 2016.

To contend, FNC filed an invalidation action against the EMERALD mark in March 2018.

Invalidation petition by FNC

FNC argued the EMERALD mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Trademark Law by stating that “EMERALD MOUNTAIN” has acquired substantial reputation and popularity as an indicator of high-quality Columbian coffee as a result of continuous sales promotion in Japan since 1970. In the coffee industry, coffee beans grown in highland are often named with the term “MOUNTAIN”, e.g. “BLUE MOUNTAIN”, “CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN”, “CARRIBERAN MOUNTAIN”, “CORAL MOUNTAIN”. In this respect, “EMERALD” shall play a prominent role in “EMERALD MOUNTAIN”. If so, both marks are deemed similar and it is likely that relevant consumers confuse or associate artificial coffee, coffee-based beverages, prepared coffee and cocoa, tea, ice bearing the EMERALD mark with “EMERALD MOUNTAIN”.

Besides, The Coca Cola Company has been using “EMERALD MOUNTAIN” on canned-liquid coffee under license from FNC. Presumably, the disputed mark was filed in anticipation of non-use cancellation claimed by FNC. In the cancellation proceeding, The Coca-Cola Company did neither answer nor respond. These facts clearly show the disputed mark was filed just to avoid cancellation even if The Coca-Cola Company had no intention to use it. It is really annoyance and free-riding on the famous marks with a fraudulent intention.

JPO decision

From the totality of evidence and circumstances, the JPO admitted a high degree of reputation and popularity of EMERALD MOUNTAIN as a source indicator of FNC’s high-quality Columbian coffee beans. In the meantime, the JPO questioned if relevant consumers connect the term “EMERALD” with FNC when used on coffee since the evidence did not disclose EMERALD MOUNTAIN is actually abbreviated to “EMERALD” in commerce. Likewise, it is suspicious whether “BLUE MOUNTAIN”, “CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN”, “CARRIBERAN MOUNTAIN”, “CORAL MOUNTAIN” are recognized with its short name, namely, “BLUE”, “CRYSTAL”, “CARRIBEAN”, “CORAL”.

In assessing the similarity of the mark, the JPO found “EMERALD MOUNTAIN” and “EMERALD” are dissimilar from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view. Given both marks are distinctively dissimilar, it is unlikely to find a likelihood of confusion in connection with the goods in dispute.

Even if The Coca-Cola Company filed the disputed mark with an intention to avoid the non-use cancellation, it would be anything but punishable in view of dissimilarity between marks. Besides, from the produced evidence, the JPO was unable to find fraudulent intention by Coca Cola to be blamed for invalidation.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to dismiss the invalidation action.

Is “You Tuber” a source indicator of Google?

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently dismissed Google LLC’s invalidation petition against TM Reg. no. 5999063 for word mark “NYAN TUBER” by finding “YouTuber” would be famous, but not as a source indicator of Google.
[Invalidation case no. 2018-890081, Gazette issued date: June 26, 2020]

Disputed mark

PECO Co., Ltd., a Japanese business entity working on the health benefits of the human-animal bond, filed a trademark application for word mark “NYAN TUBER” written in Japanese Katakana character (see below) on pet-related services in class 35 and 42 to the JPO on April 3, 2017.

“Nyan” is the sound cats make in Japan. Cats don’t make the same sounds in other countries. In the United States, it sounds like meow. In Germany, it’s miau; and, in France, it’s miaou.

So, “NYAN TUBER” easily reminds Japanese consumers of a person who frequently uploads videos of cats to ‘YouTube’.

The disputed mark was registered on November 24, 2017 (TM Registration no. 5999063).

Invalidation petition by Google

On October 24, 2018, Google LLC filed a petition for invalidation and alleged among others the disputed mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii),(x),(xi),(xv),(xix) of the Trademark Law due to similarity to, or a likelihood of confusion with “YouTuber”

Google argued “YouTuber” has become famous as an indication closely associated with Google’s well-known online video sharing services ‘YouTube’. Because of it, relevant consumers and traders at sights of the disputed mark would connect or associate it with ‘YouTuber’.

YOU TUBER

According to recent polls, becoming a YouTuber or vlogger becomes the most popular career goal for Japanese children and teenagers.

TOP 5 JOBS BOYS WANT (2019)
1. Youtuber/Vlogger, 2. Soccer player, 3. Baseball player, 4. Driver, 5. Policeman

PECO counterargued that it becomes usual for YouTubers to use him/her YouTube name “___Tuber”. If so, relevant consumers at the sight of “NYAN TUBER” videos would just consider the disputed mark represents the video or a person who uploaded it and never conceive the mark as a source indicator of Google or YouTube.

Invalidation Board decision

The JPO Invalidation Board did not question a high degree of popularity and reputation of “YouTube” as a source indicator of Google’s online video sharing services.

In the meantime, the Board found “YouTuber” would be recognized as a generic term to represent ‘a person who creates and uploads videos on the YouTube online video sharing service’ by referring to some dictionaries. In fact, Google does not register the term over any goods and services at all, and thus the Board denied the famousness of “YouTuber” as a source indicator of Google’s service.

With regard to the assessment of the similarity between “YouTuber” and “NYAN TUBER”, the Board found that both marks are dissimilar as a whole even though they have partially the same in the suffix. The difference in the prefix, “NYAN” and “YOU” substantially gives rise to a distinctive impression from appearance, sound, and concept as a whole in the minds of relevant consumers. Accordingly, both marks would be anything but confusingly similar.

Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed Google’s allegations entirely and declared validation of the disputed mark.

Happiness Diamond makes Chopard Happy Diamonds unhappy

Posted on

Swiss manufacturer and retailer of luxury watches, jewelry and accessories, CHOPARD INTERNATIONAL S.A. failed in their attempt to stop the registration of a word mark “Happiness Diamond” at the Japan Patent Office.
[Opposition case no. 2019-900134, Gazette issue date: November 29, 2019]

HAPPINESS DIAMOND

Opposed mark (TM Registration no. 6118600), consisting of two words “Happiness Diamond” in standard character, was applied for registration on November 26,2018 for jewelry, accessories, watches in class 14 by Happiness and D Co., Ltd., a Japanese company.

At an initial application, applicant requested the JPO to expedite substantive examination. In accordance with the request, JPO examiner put a priority on the mark and admitted to grant registration in two months subsequent to substantive examination.

Accelerated Examination

JPO applies the accelerated examination system to trademark application on the condition that the application meets the following condition.

  1. Applicant/licensee uses or will use applied mark on one of designated goods/services at least, and there exists an urgency to registration, e.g. unauthorized use by third parties
  2. All designated goods/services are actually or shortly used by applicant/licensee, or
  3. Applicant/licensee uses or will use applied mark on one of designated goods/services at least, and all the goods/services are designated in accordance with a standard description based on Examination Guidelines for Similar Goods and Services.

Accelerated examination system enables applicant to obtain examination results in less than two months on average, which is six months shorter than regular examination nowadays.

Opposition by Chopard

On April 26, 2019, before the lapse of a two-months opposition period, CHOPARD INTERNATIONAL S.A., a Swiss manufacturer and retailer of luxury watches, jewelry and accessories, filed an opposition to opposed mark.

Opponent (CHOPARD) claimed that the opposed mark “Happiness Diamond” shall be retroactively cancelled under Article 4(1)(x), (xi), (xv), (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law in relation to all designated goods in class 14 by citing an owned senior international registration no. 446502 for word mark “Happy Diamonds” covering ‘Mechanical hand-winding and self-winding watches; electric and electronic watches; chronometers; jewelry; jewelry watches; all these goods adorned with diamonds’ in class 14, which has been effectively registered in Japan since September 24, 2010.

Article 4(1)(x) prohibits to register a trademark which is identical with, or similar to, other entity’s well-known mark over goods or services closely related with the entity’s business.

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.

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.

To stop registration of opposed mark, CHOPARD has to prove “Happy Diamonds” is similar to “Happiness Diamond”. Even if both marks are deemed dissimilar, CHOPARD is still able to win the case by demonstrating likelihood of confusion resulting from fame of CHOPARD “Happy Diamonds”.

Board Decision

To my surprise, the Board held “Happiness Diamond” is sufficiently dissimilar to “Happy Diamonds” by stating that:

  1. From appearance and pronunciation, both marks, consisting of two words, are unlikely to cause confusion given the difference on the first word “Happiness” and “Happy”.
  2. Besides, both marks do not give rise to any specific meaning. If so, it is incomparable in concept.
  3. Thus, from the totality of the circumstances, relevant consumers would neither associate nor connect opposed mark with “Happy Diamonds”.

The Board questioned whether CHOPARD “Happy Diamonds” has acquired a sufficient degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers in Japan to be protectable under Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law in view of produced evidences although opponent alleged its first use dates back to 1976. If so, it is unlikely that relevant consumers confuse or misconceive a source of the opposed mark with CHOPARD or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent.

Consequently, opposed mark is not subject to Article 4(1)(x), (xi), (xv) and (xix), and remains valid as a status quo.

SEGWAY unsuccessful in opposing SWAGWAY mark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by an American manufacturer of two-wheeled personal transporters, Segway Inc. against trademark registration no. 5910587 for the Swagway mark in class 12 by finding less likelihood of confusion due to dissimilarity of mark. [Opposition case no. 2017-900114]

 

Opposed Swagway mark

Opposed mark “Swagway” in standard character was filed by a Chinese business entity on December 2, 2015 by designating the goods of “a two-wheeled, self-balancing personal transporter; automobiles; bicycles; airplanes; water vehicles; railway cars: accessories of aforementioned goods” in class 12.
Going thourgh a substantive examination, the JPO admitted registration on January 6, 2017 and published for opposition on February 7, 2017.

 

Segway’s Opposition

To oppose against registration of the Swagway mark, Segway Inc. filed an opposition on April 7, 2017.

In the opposition brief, Segway Inc. asserted the opposed mark shall be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing the owned famous SEGWAY mark effectively registered over various types of vehicles in class 12 since 2002 (TM Reg. no. 4605474 etc.).
Article 4(1)(vii) prohibits any mark likely to offend public order and morals from registering.
Article 4(1)(x) prohibits to register a trademark which is identical with, or similar to, other entity’s well-known mark over goods or services closely related with the entity’s business.
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.
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.

 

Board Decision

The Opposition Board admitted a certain degree of reputation and popularity of opponent SEGWAY mark in relation to a two-wheeled, self-balancing personal transporter, however, negated similarity of mark between SEGWAY and Swagway totally. The Board assessed, from appearance, difference at the 2nd and 3rd letters gives rise to a distinctive impression in the mind of relevant consumers provided that both marks merely consist of six or seven letters in its entirety. The difference also produces a distinctive impression in sound of the 1st syllable. Besides, both marks are evidently dissimilar in meaning given they are not dictionary words per se.
Based on it, the Board dismissed allegations of Article 4(1)(x) and (xi).

The Board questioned, as long as both marks are distinctively dissimilar, whether relevant consumers are likely to associate or confuse the source of opposed mark with Segway Inc. even if opposed mark is used on a two-wheeled, self-balancing personal transporter.
From the evidences produced by opponent, the Board was unable to find any fact to cause confusion with, or to presume malicious intention to do harm to opponent’ good will and business. If so, it is questionable whether relevant consumers or traders are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of the opposed mark with Segway Inc. or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent.
Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed allegations of Article 4(1)(vii), (x) and (xix) as well.

Google victorious in trademark dispute for YouTube icon

Posted on

The Trial Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently upheld Google’s invalidation petition against TM Reg. no. 5665763 for the “Video Blog” mark in combination with figurative element (see below) due to similarity to YouTube icon and a likelihood of confusion with Google business.
[Invalidation case no. 2017-890005, Gazette issue date: July 27, 2018]

 

TM Registration no.5665763

Opposed mark, consisting of two words “Video Blog” in English and Japanese in two lines, and figurative elements depicted in between the words, was applied for registration on August 13, 2013 in respect of broadcasting services for internet in class 38.

Without confronting with a refusal during substantive examination, opposed mark was registered on April 25, 2014.

Petition for invalidation

Japan Trademark Law provides a provision to retroactively invalidate trademark registration for certain restricted reasons specified under Article 46 (1).

Google Incorporated filed a petition for invalidation against opposed mark on January 25, 2017. Google argued it shall be invalidated due to a conflict with famous YouTube icon (see below) and a likelihood of confusion with Google business when used on internet broadcasting services in class 38 based on Article 4(1)(x) and (xv) of the Trademark Law.

Board decision

The Board admitted that YouTube icon has acquired a high degree of popularity and reputation as a sign to play movies and TV shows on YouTube or an icon to start up YouTube application among relevant consumers of broadcasting service for internet.

In assessment of the similarity between two marks, at the outset the Board found that the words “Video Blog” of opposed mark in itself lack distinctiveness as a source indicator in relation to the designated service. If so, the figurative element of opposed mark plays key role as a source indicator. It is unquestionable that the figurative element is highly similar to Youtube icon. Besides, in view of Google’s business portfolio, it is highly predictable that Google launches broadcasting or news distributing business.

Users of Google services are also likely to receive internet broadcasting services.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that, from totality of circumstances and evidences, relevant traders or consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of opposed mark with Google or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent and declared invalidation based on Article 4(1)(x) and (xv).