カテゴリー: Article 4(1)(xv)

SWATCH Defeated in SWATCH vs iWATCH Trademark Dispute

Posted on

The Trial Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an invalidation petition by Swiss watch giant, Swatch against TM Reg. no. 5849925 for word mark “iWATCH” owned by U.S. tech giant, Apple Inc.
[Invalidation case no. 2017-890071, Gazette issue date: January 31,2020]

iWATCH

Disputed mark, consisting of a word “iWATCH” in plain block letters (see below), was applied for registration in the name of Apple Inc. on April 25, 2014 in respect of watches, clocks and other goods in class 14.

Immediately after registration on May 13, 2016, Swatch filed an opposition to challenge registrability of disputed mark based on Article 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(vi), 4(1)(xi), 4(1)(xv), 4(1)(xvi) of the Japan Trademark Law, but in vain. [Opposition case no. 2016-900234]

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, materials, efficacy, intended purpose, quantity, shape (including shape of packages), price, the method or time of production or use.

Article 3(1)(vi) is a comprehensive provision to prohibit any mark lacking inherent distinctiveness from being registered.

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) 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.

Article 4(1)(xvi) is a provision to prohibit registration of any mark likely to mislead quality of goods or services.

Invalidation Trial

Japan Trademark Law provides a provision to retroactively invalidate trademark registration for specific grounds under Article 46 (1).

In an effort to argue against the opposition decision, Swatch filed a petition for invalidation against disputed mark on October 23, 2017. Swatch argued disputed mark “iWATCH” shall be invalid because of following reasons:

  1. Given disputed mark consists of an alphabet letter “i” and a generic term in relation to a designated goods ‘watch’, the mark can be merely perceived to indicate a value, code, type, mode or standard of ‘watch’. If so, disputed mark shall be lack of distinctiveness and revocable under Article 3(1)(vi) in relation to the goods.
  2. Likewise, relevant consumers would misconceive quality of goods when disputed mark is used on goods other than ‘watch’ in class 14, e.g. jewelry, key holders, jewelry boxes, accessories. If so, disputed mark shall be revocable under Article 4(1)(xvi) in relation to goods other than ‘watch’.
  3. Disputed mark “iWATCH” resembles “SWATCH” from visual and phonetic points of view. It is unquestionable SWATCH has become remarkably famous for watches and fashion items of Swatch Group. If so, a likelihood of confusion will arise between “iWATCH” and “SWATCH” when disputed mark is used on goods in class 14. Thus, disputed mark is revocable under Article 4(1)(xi).

Board Decision

In the decision, the Board sided with Apple Inc. and found that:

  • The Board considers the term “iWATCH” is a coined word in its entirety which does not give rise to any specific meaning at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that relevant consumers conceive disputed mark just as a qualitative indication of goods in question.
  • The Board admits “SWATCH” has been acquired a high degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers and traders as famous watch of Swatch Group. In the meantime, the term appears less unique and creative since it is a dictionary word meaning ‘a sample piece (as of fabric) or a collection of samples’.
  • Difference on initial letter of both marks shall not be negligible on the case. The Board has no good reason to believe both marks are deemed similar from visual, phonetic and conceptual points of view.
  • If so, it is unlikely to happen that relevant consumers with an ordinary care would associate or misconceive disputed mark with Swatch or any entity systematically or economically connected with claimant even when used on ‘watch’.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded “iWATCH” shall be irrevocable in relation to “SWATCH” and dismissed Swatch’s invalidation petition wholly.

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.

French fashion magazine “ELLE” Victorious in Trademark Opposition against “ELLEROSE”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) upheld an opposition filed by HACHETTE FILIPACCHI PRESSE, société anonyme (FR) and decided cancellation of Japanese trademark registration no. 6010765 for a composite mark containing “ELLROSE” due to a likelihood of confusion with a French fashion magazine “ELLE”.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900085, Gazette issued date: December 27, 2019]

ELLEROSE

Opposed mark, a composite mark consisting of three terms “ELLEROSE”, “STYLE UP”, “BODY SHAPE WEAR” aligned vertically in different font size and a silhouette of female lower body depicted in between ‘STYLE’ and ‘UP’ (see below), was applied for registration on July 25, 2017 for ‘underwear, socks, thermal supporters [clothing], waistbands, belts [clothing], special clothing for sports’ in class 25 by ELLEROSE Co., Ltd., a Japanese company. The JPO published opposed mark for registration on February 6, 2018.

ELLEROSE promoted the sales of women’s shapewear using the “STYLE UP” mark. Click here.

Opposition by ELLE

On April 6, 2018, just before the lapse of a two-months opposition period, HACHETTE FILIPACCHI PRESSE, société anonyme (hereinafter referred to as HFP), a French company responsible for the well-known women’s magazine ELLE, which had the largest readership of any fashion magazine in the world, with culturally specific editions published on six continents in the early 21st century, filed an opposition to “ELLEROSE”.

In the opposition, HFP contended that opposed mark shall be cancelled under Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law, stating that relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive opposed mark with HFP or any business entity systematically or economically connected with opponent due to high popularity of opponent’s fashion brand “ELLE” and close resemblance between opposed mark and “ELLE”.

Article 4(1)(xv)

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.

Board decision

The Board admitted “ELLE” has acquired a high degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers and traders as a source indicator of opponent in connection with magazine as well as fashion items based on the facts that (i) “ELLE japon” fashion magazine has been published in Japan since 1982. Annual circulation of the magazine was 940,000 in 2014, (ii) HSP has continuously promoted and licensed the ELLE mark on various fashion items since 1987. The number of licensees increased over 30. It turned over JPY 4.8billion (approx. USD 43million) in 2017.

Besides, the Board found that it is allowed to cut out and compare respective element of opposed mark with opponent mark “ELLE” in assessing similarity of both marks since the Board can’t identify any visual, conceptual or phonetic linkage between the elements to comprehend opposed mark as a whole. Given the elements of “STYLE UP”, “BODY SHAPE WEAR” and a silhouette of female lower body are less distinctive, there is reasonable ground to believe that relevant consumers shall be impressed with the term “ELLEROSE” and consider it a dominant part of opposed mark.

Averages consumers would easily notice the term “ELLEROSE” consists of “ELLE” and “ROSE” which is a familiar French term meaning ‘a garden plant with thorns on its stems and pleasant-smelling flowers’, and then conceive a famous fashion brand, ELLE from the term when used on goods in class 25.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that, relevant traders or consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of opposed mark with HFP or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent when used on goods in class 25 and declared cancellation based on Article 4(1)(xv).

San Miguel defeat in trademark dispute over ‘AGUA MIGUEL’

Posted on

In a recent trademark decision, the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition against TM Reg. no. 6104642 for word mark ‘AGUA MIGUEL’ filed by Philippines-based San Miguel Brewing International Ltd. who argued a likelihood of confusion with its famous beer brand ‘San Miguel’.
[Opposition case no. 2019-900077, Gazette issued on December 27, 2019]

Opposed mark – AGUA MIGUEL

Opposed mark ‘AGUA MIGUEL’ written in standard character was filed in the name of NIPPON BEER CO., LTD., a Japanese importer and wholesaler of beers and beverage from abroad.

The mark was filed to JPO on March 29, 2018 and, without confronting with office action from the JPO examiner, published for registration on January 8, 2019 over the goods of “mineral water” in class 32.

Opposition by San Miguel

On March 8, 2019, before the lapse of a two-months opposition period, San Miguel Brewing International Ltd. filed an opposition. In the opposition, San Miguel contended opposed mark shall be cancelled based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

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

Likelihood of confusion is a key criteria when assessing the similarity of trademarks. To establish whether there is likelihood of confusion, the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity will be assessed as well as the goods and/or services involved. This assessment is based on the overall impression given by those marks, account being taken, in particular, of their distinctive and dominant components. A low degree of similarity between the goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa.

San Miguel argued opposed mark is likely to cause confusion with opponent’s beer brand ‘San Miguel’, which occupies 90% of the market share in Philippines and its reputation has been widely known in Asian countries including Japan. Opposed mark consists of terms ‘AGUA’ and ‘MIGUEL’. ‘AGUA’ is less distinctive in relation to mineral water since it means water in Spanish. If so, it is apparent that the portion of ‘MIGUEL’ relatively plays a dominant role of source indicator of opposed mark. Likewise, presumably relevant consumers would pay more attention to the term ‘Miguel’ from famous beer brand. In view of close association between mineral water and beers and resemblance between the marks, it is undeniable that relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive opposed mark with San Miguel or any business entity systematically or economically connected with opponent.

Board decision

The Opposition Board found a low degree of similarity between ‘San Miguel’ and ‘AGUA MIGUEL’ from visual, phonetic and conceptual points of view. Even if the term ‘AGUA’ means water in Spanish, relevant consumers with an ordinary care at the sight of opposed mark would be unlikely to see the portion of ‘MIGUEL’ as a dominant part, but rather gasp opposed mark in its entirety.

The Board found a certain degree of popularity and reputation of beer brand ‘San Miguel’ among traders and beer drinkers, but, to my surprise, the Board questioned if the beer has been widely known among general consumers regardless of continuous domestic use of the mark in commerce since 1972, by stating that produced materials have no reference to actual sales performance in Japan. A mare fact of continuous use for the last 47 years is insufficient and non-objective to demonstrate famousness of the San Miguel beer brand in Japan.

Provided that opponent failed to demonstrate ‘San Miguel’ has been well-known for opponent’s beer among relevant consumers, the Board held that opposed mark is unlikely to cause confuse with opponent or any business entity systematically or economically connected with San Miguel in view of a remote resemblance between both marks. Thus, opposed mark shall not be revocable to Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law and dismissed the opposition entirely.

Google successful in a trademark opposition against “ANDROID HOSPITAL”

Posted on

The Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided in favor of Google LLC to retroactively cancel trademark registration no. 6008625 for word mark “ANDROID HOSPITAL” due to a likelihood of confusion with Google’s famous trademark “ANDROID”.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900065, Gazette issued on November 29, 2019]

Opposed mark

SMAHOSPOTAL Co., Ltd., a Japanese business entity running smartphone repair shops, filed a trademark application for word mark “ANDROID HOSPITAL” written in Japanese Katakana character (see below) on smartphone repair or maintenance service in class 37 to the JPO on May 10, 2017.

Opposed mark was published for registration on January 30, 2018 without confronting with office action from the JPO examiner.

Opposition by Google LLC

On March 14, 2018, Google LLC filed an opposition against “ANDROID HOSPITAL”.

Google argued that opposed mark shall be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law on the grounds that relevant consumers would confuse or associate opposed mark, containing Google’s trademark “ANDROID” famous for Google’s Linux-based open source operating system for mobile devices, with opponent when used on the designated service in question.

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

Board Decision

The Board admitted that ANDROID has acquired a high degree of popularity and reputation as a source indicator of Google’s operating system for mobile devices at the time of both initial filing and registration of opposed mark.

In the assessment of similarity, the Board found it is likely that the average consumers would pay a considerable attention to the term “ANDROID” of opposed mark from its configuration because the initial portion of a mark is better remembered and generally considered to be the dominant portion of the mark. If so, a certain degree of similarity exists between two marks.

Even though “ANDROID” is a dictionary word having a meaning of ‘a robot with a human appearance’, it would anything but mean to negate novelty of the term in relation to OS for mobile devices. Besides, the designated service in question and OS for mobile devices are both related to smartphone. Given ‘smartphone repair or maintenance service’ includes ‘repair and maintenance service for Android smartphones’ as a matter of course and these are purchased or consumed by the same consumers (the general public), the Board considers opponent business and the service in question are closely associated.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that, from totality of circumstances and evidences, relevant traders and consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of opposed mark used in relation to the service (class 37) with Google or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent and declared cancellation based on Article 4(1)(xv).

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.

Trademark Dispute – SNOOPY vs. SNOOPY COUNSELOR

Posted on

The Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) held “SNOOPY COUNSELOR” is unlikely to cause confusion with “SNOOPY”, one of the most iconic and beloved comic-strip character by Charles M. Schulz, the pet beagle of the hapless Peanuts character Charlie Brown when used in connection with psychological counseling services.
[Appeal case no. 2019-8241, Gazette issued date: November 29, 2019]

SNOOPY COUNSELOR

Veriteworks Inc., a Japanese company, filed a trademark application for work mark “SNOOPY COUNSELOR” written in Japanese Katakana character (see below) by designating ‘psychological counseling instruction; arranging, conducting and organization of counseling seminars’ (class 41) and ‘psychological counseling’ (class 44) to the JPO on August 14, 2018.

Refusal by JPO examiner

The JPO examiner refused the mark under Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by stating that the mark contains a term “SNOOPY” which has been famous as a fictional character, the pet beagle of Charlie Brown in the comic strip Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz. The character has long been licensed for use on merchandise by Peanuts Worldwide LLC and considerable licensed goods in addition to comics have been distributed in Japan by its licensee, Sony Creative Products Inc. so far.

If so, relevant consumers and traders are likely to connect and associate the mark with services from Peanuts Worldwide LLC or its licensee and thus confuse its source of origin.

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.

To contend, applicant filed an appeal against the refusal on June 20, 2019.

Appeal Board’s decision

The Appeal Board reversed the examiner’s refusal and admitted applied mark “SNOOPY COUNSELOR” to registration by finding that:

  1. It is unquestionable that “SNOOPY” has been well-known for a character, the pet beagle of Charlie Brown in the comic strip Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz. However, the Board has an opinion that it is unclear from the produced materials and information whether relevant consumers connect or associate the licensed goods and services pertinent to “SNOOPY” with any specific business entity.
  2. From appearance, the term “SNOOPY” of applied mark can be perceived as a dominant portion given “COUNSELOR” lacks distinctiveness in relation to the designated services in class 41 and 44. If so, both marks remarkably resemble from visual and phonetic aspects.
  3. Since it is also unknown whether Peanuts Worldwide LLC is likely to engage in its licensing business on psychological counseling, the Board considers relatedness with the services in question is incomparable and relatively low.
  4. Provided that relevant consumers are unlikely to perceive the “SNOOPY” as a source indicator of Peanuts Worldwide LLC or its licensees, even if both marks resemble, the Board finds applied mark “SNOOPY COUNSELOR” would not cause confusion with goods or services from Peanuts Worldwide LLC or its licensees.

It is noteworthy that the JPO denied a likelihood of confusion between “SNOOPY COUNSELOR” and “SNOOPY” regardless of finding famousness of “SNOOPY” as an iconic and beloved comic-strip character.

JAGUAR LAND ROVER Lost Trademark Opposition over Jaguar Logo

Posted on1 Comment

The Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) held a junior trademark registration no. 6104905 for a composite mark comprised of “JAGTEC” and feline device is neither similar to, nor likely to cause confusion with senior trademark registrations for leaping jaguar logo owned by Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. when used on automobiles in class 12.
[Opposition case no. 2019-900064, Gazette issued date: October 25, 2019]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark (see below) was applied for registration on March 29, 2018 by designating automobiles and its structural parts in class 12, and published for registration on January 8, 2019 without confronting any office action from the JPO examiner.

Opposition by Jaguar Land Rover

Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. filed an opposition on February 28, 2019 before the JPO and claimed that opposed mark shall be cancelled based on Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law by citing trademark registrations for its iconic jaguar logos (see below) which include the image of a leaping jaguar, accompanied by the word “jaguar”, which the opponent claims to be used over 75 years old.

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

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

Jaguar Land Rover claimed that , inter alia, opposed mark, consisting of a leaping feline device and literal element starting from “JAG”, looks confusingly similar to the cited marks from visual, oral, and conceptual points of view. Besides, the goods in question is identical with that of cited marks. If so, opposed application “for the contested goods would be recognized as uniquely and unmistakably identifying or suggesting a connection to opponent , and thus relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive opposed mark with a famous car brand “JAGUAR”.

Opposition decision

To my surprise, the Opposition Board pointed out that Jaguar Land Rover alleged the leaping jaguar logo has been used since 1938 and well-acquainted with relevant consumers though, it is questionable whether cited marks have acquired a substantial reputation as a result of consecutive use from the produced evidences.

Besides, the Board flatly negated similarity between opposed mark and cited marks respectively.

By taking into consideration uncertain famousness of cited marks and low degree of similarity between the marks, the Board concluded relevant traders and consumers are unlikely to confuse or associate opposed mark with opponent or any business entity economically or systematically connected with Jaguar Land Rover even when used on automobiles. Based on the foregoing, opposed mark shall not be cancelled under Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law.

JPO finds “CLUB MOET KYOTO” and “Moët & Chandon” likely to cause confusion

Posted on1 Comment

The Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with MHCS, the producer, inter alia, of the famous Moët & Chandon champagne, and decided to cancel trademark registration no. 6030384 for word mark “CLUB MOET KYOTO” due to a likelihood of confusion with “Moët & Chandon”.

CLUB MOET KYOTO

Opposed mark, a word mark “CLUB MOET KYOTO” written in standard character, was filed on November 14, 2017 by designating restaurant service of class 43 in the name of a Japanese business entity having its principal place of business at Kyoto. It appears the applicant owns hostess bar and opposed mark is actually used as a name of the bar. See here.

Immediately after filing the application, applicant requested the JPO to accelerate examination of opposed mark. In accordance with the request, the JPO rushed to a decision and admitted registration on March 23, 2018.

MHCS – OPPOSITION

MHCS, as a holder of the Japanese trademark “MOET”, sought to retroactively cancel the registration of opposed mark, on the grounds that the mark was likely to cause confusion with “Moët & Chandon” when used on restaurant service in class 43 under Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Likelihood of confusion is a key criteria when assessing the similarity of trademarks. To establish whether there is likelihood of confusion, the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity will be assessed as well as the goods and/or services involved. This assessment is based on the overall impression given by those marks, account being taken, in particular, of their distinctive and dominant components. A low degree of similarity between the goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa.

MHCS argued that a term “MOET” of opposed mark shall playa a dominant role as a source indicator since both “CLUB” and “KYOTO” are devoid of distinctive character in relation to restaurant service. If so, relevant consumers may misconceive “Moët & Chandon” from opposed mark when used on the service in question by taking its prestigious reputation of “Moët” as an abbreviation of world-famous champagne into consideration.

OPPOSITION DECISION

The JPO Opposition Board decided in favor of MHCS, finding that both “Moët & Chandon” and its abbreviation “Moët” have acquired substantial reputation as a top ranking champagne brand distributed by MHCS. It is unlikely that relevant consumers would conceive “Moët” as a surname of foreigners. If so, the term is anything but a dictionary word, rather a coined word. Besides, both marks are confusingly similar, due to visual, phonetic and conceptual similarities, since the literal elements “CLUB” and “KYOTO” of opposed mark are devoid of distinctive character in relation to the service in question, as well as close association between champagne and restaurant service for which protection was sought based on the fact that MHCS once opened restaurant in the year 2014.

Based on the above considerations, the Opposition Board cancelled trademark registration of opposed mark in its entirety, finding there to be likelihood of confusion between “Moët & Chandon” and the trademark applied for.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900152, Gazette issued date: October 25, 2019]