カテゴリー: Device mark

JPO decision over POWER TECH trademark

Posted on

In an administrative appeal disputing trademark similarity between TM registration no. 4015750 for word mark “POWERTECH” and a junior application no. 2016-137853 for the “AC POWERTECH” device mark represented as below, the Appeal Board of the Japan Patent Office decided that both marks are deemed dissimilar and reversed examiner’s rejection.
[Appeal case no. 2018-6124, Gazette issued date: October 26, 2018]

 

TM Registration no. 4015750

The cited mark, consisting of a word “POWERTECH” colored in red (see below), was registered on June 20, 1997 by designating various vehicles in class 12.

Junior Application no. 2016-137853

Applied junior mark consists of the following “AC POWERTECH” device mark (see below).

It was applied for registration on December 7, 2016 by designating vehicles in class 12.

The JPO examiner refused the applied mark due to a conflict with senior TM registration no. 4015750 based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

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.

 

Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection and disputed dissimilarity of both marks.

 

Board decision

In the decision, the Appeal Board held that:

Applied mark is a composite mark mainly consisting of two words of “AC” and “POWERTECH” written in two lines and a black hexagon.

Even if the term “AC” is likely to be used as an indication of type and mode of vehicles in commerce, from appearance of applied mark as a whole, the Board opines that relevant consumers would not conceive the term as indication of type or model. If so, it is questionable whether consumers ignore “AC” in the applied mark and pay considerable attention to the term “POWERTECH”. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that applied mark shall give rise to a pronunciation nothing but “AC POWERTECH” and no specific meaning.

Based on the foregoing, in the assessment of trademark similarity, the Board decided that:

Obviously, both marks are distinguishable in appearance. Given applied mark does give rise to a pronunciation of “AC POWERTECH” and no meaning, the Board finds no ground to affirm examiner’s rejection from visual, phonetic, and conceptual point of view.

 

Astonishingly, JPO viewed the applied mark “AC POWERTECH” in its entirety irrespective of significant difference in font size between “AC” and “POWERTECH”.

Louis Vuitton victory in trademark battle for remake use

Posted on2 Comments

In a trademark battle involving famous Louis Vuitton Monogram for remake use, the Japan IP High Court ruled in favor of Louis Vuitton and ordered appellant to pay 1.7 million JP-Yen for damages on October 23, 2018.

Custom-made Remake

Appellant has produced shoes, caps and other fashion items by making use of material of secondhand Louis Vuitton goods (see below) and promoted the items as a custom-made remake, e.g. LOUIS VUITTON REMAKE DENIM CAP/BLUE, through internet.

Unfair Competition Prevention Act

Louis Vuitton filed a lawsuit and demanded to stop selling the items as well as payment for the damage on the grounds that appellant’s act constitutes unfair competition under Article 2(1)(ii) of the Japan Unfair Prevention Act.

Article 2(1)(ii) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is a provision to prohibit any person from using a famous source indicator of another person without permission.

Appeal

Appellant argued they become popular among relevant consumers as a business entity to produce a custom-made remake from secondhand of genuine brand. If so, since consumers are fully aware that the items are remake, neither faked goods nor brand-new article, confusion is unlikely to happen in the mind of consumers. Besides, appellant insisted as long as the Louis Vuitton Monogram is not used as a source indicator but design, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is not applicable to the items.

IP High Court decision

The IP High Court decisively dismissed appellant’s allegations and decided the monogram on the items still plays a role of source indicator in view of remarkable reputation of Louis Vuitton Monogram. It can be easily presumed that average consumers at sight of the items shall conceive Louis Vuitton. Even if the items are sold as a custom-made remake or with any description to appeal the items made from secondhand, such facts will not affect the decision on the merit.
[Heisei 30 (Ne)10042]

The Unfair Competition Prevention Act is essential to the case where actual confusion would not happen in fact regardless of unauthorized commercial use of famous brand.

Trademark Dispute over Pendant Lamp Shade

Posted on2 Comments

In a decision to the invalidation trial claimed by LUIS POULSEN A/S, a Danish company, the Trial Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) upheld the petition and invalidated TM registration no. 5643726 for a combination mark containing the pendant lamp shade design (see below) in violation of Article 4(1)(xix) of the Trademark Law.
[Invalidation case no. 2017-890003, Gazette issue date: September 28, 2018]

 

Disputed mark

Disputed mark, consisting of a literal element “R&M Interior Store”, “R&M” logo in the shape of shield and the pendant lamp shade design (see below), was filed on June 14, 2013 by a Japanese business entity, designating wholesale or retail services for lighting apparatus and others in class 35.

Going through substantive examination, the JPO admitted registration on January 17, 2014. Three years after the registration, LUIS POULSEN A/S filed an invalidation action against disputed mark on January 4, 2017.

 

Invalidation trial

During the invalidation trial, LUIS POULSEN A/S argued disputed mark shall be invalidation based on Article 4(1)(xix) since the applicant filed the mark, confusingly similar to trademark registration no. 5825191 for 3D mark in the shape of unique pendant lamp shade (see below) well-known for “PH5” created by a Danish designer Poul Henningsen, with a malicious intention to damage claimant.

According to supporting evidence produced to the trial, “PH5” lamp was originally designed in 1958. It has been promoted for sale in the marketplace of Japan since 1976. More than 500,000 lamps have been produced and sold around the globe. To bolster its reputation, LUIS POULSEN submitted a written declaration by Danish Ambassador to Japan. Besides, 3D shape of “PH5” lamp shade is successfully registered by finding acquired distinctiveness as a result of substantial use and uniqueness finally to serve as a source indicator (TM Registration no. 5825191).


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 Board found that:

  1. 3D shape of “PH5” lamp has become famous as a source indicator of LUIS POULSEN among relevant domestic consumers well before the filing date of disputed mark as a result of continuous marketing activities in Japan since 1976.
  2. In the assessment of trademark similarity, it is unquestionable that the pendant lamp shade design depicted in disputed mark closely resembles “PH5”. From overall appearance, relevant consumers and traders will conceive the portion of the pendant lamp shade design plays a dominant role in disputed mark.
  3. The fact that applicant promoted similar lamp shade as “reproduct” or “generic product” of “PH5” convinces us that applicant has been aware of prospective controversy and causing damage to business interest of LUIS POULSEN.

Based on the above findings, the Board concluded that applicant filed a similar mark to “PH5” well-known for a pendant lamp shade of LUIS POULSEN with a malicious intention to gain unfair profits or cause damage to claimant. Thus, disputed mark shall be invalidated in violation of Article 4(1)(xix) of the Trademark Law.

Trademark race for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games

Posted on

The Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) refused Trademark Application No. 2016-85559 for a device mark consisting of metallic rings on goods of metallic fishing nets in class 6 on the ground of conflict with Article 4(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Metallic ring device mark

Mark in question ( see below) was filed on August 8, 2016 by designating goods of metallic fishing nets in class 6.

Article 4(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law

The JPO examiner refused the mark by citing the Olympic Rings based on Article 4(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law.
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.
JPO trademark examination guidelines clearly refer to the Olympic Symbol as an example of the mark to indicate a non-profit business for public interest.

Olympic Rings

The Olympic symbol, widely known throughout the world as the Olympic Rings, is the visual ambassador of Olympism for billions of people.
The Olympic symbol is defined in Olympic Charter, Rule 8 as

“The Olympic symbol consists of five interlaced rings of equal dimensions (the Olympic rings), used alone, in one or in five different colours. When used in its five-colour version, these colours shall be, from left to right, blue, yellow, black, green and red. The rings are interlaced from left to right; the blue, black and red rings are situated at the top, the yellow and green rings at the bottom.”

The Olympic Rings, publicly presented for the first time in 1913, remain a global representation of the Olympic movement and its activity.

Appeal Board decision

In an appeal, the Board sustained examiner’s refusal and decided the mark in question shall be refused on the same ground.
The Board stated that mark in question has same configuration with the Olympic Rings and thus consumers at the sight of the mark are likely to conceive a well-known Olympic symbol from appearance regardless of difference in small rings to connect five symbolic rings.
[Appeal case no. 2018-1590, Gazette issued date : August 31, 2018]

ROLEX Unsuccessful in Trademark Battle Over Crown Logo

Posted on5 Comments

In a recent trademark decision, the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition against IR no. 1263679  filed by Rolex SA, Swiss manufacturer of luxurious watches, based on the iconic Rolex crown.

[Opposition case no. 2017-685031, Gazette issue date: August 31, 2018]

 

Opposed mark – Crown device

Opposed mark, consisting of a crown device (see below), was filed in the name of PWT A/S, a Danish retailer of clothing, furnishings, and accessories for men, women, and children.
The mark was filed to JPO through the Madrid Protocol (IR no. 1263679) with priority date of June 25, 2014 and admitted national registration on July 28, 2017 over the goods of “Toilet soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, perfumed toilet preparations, preparations for cleaning, care and beauty cosmetics of the skin, scalp and hair, deodorizing preparations for personal use” in class 3, “Leather, boxes of leather or leather board, bags of leather for packaging” in class 18, and “Clothing, headgear” in class 25.
During substantive examination, JPO examiner initially issued a refusal due to a conflict with senior registrations for the Rolex crown. However, the JPO withdrew the refusal as a result of PWT’s response to partially delete goods and argue dissimilarity of mark.

Opposition by Rolex

During a two-months opposition period after registration, Rolex SA filed an opposition, stating that relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive opposed mark with Rolex or any business entity systematically or economically connected with Rolex because of high similarity to the iconic Rolex crown (see above) and close association between “watches” and the designated goods in class 3 and 25.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Rolex SA sought to retroactively cancel opposed mark in relation to cosmetics and other goods designated under class 3 and clothing, headgear in class 25 based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.
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 Opposition Board did not question a remarkable degree of popularity and reputation of the ROLEX crown as a source indicator of opponent business.
In the meantime, the Board considered both marks give rise to a different impression in the minds of relevant consumers from overall appearance and found that the degree of similarity of marks is relatively low irrespective of a common crown design with five points and its circle-shaped ends. Besides, the Board negated close association between watches and cosmetics, apparel to the extent that watches, a sort of precision instrument, are not ordinarily manufactured or distributed by same business entity with cosmetics and apparel.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that relevant consumers of goods in question are unlikely to confuse opposed mark with Rolex or any business entity systematically or economically connected with opponent.
Thus, opposed mark is not subject to Article 4(1)(x), and valid as a status quo.

Is Polaroid Photo Frame trademarked?

Posted on

In a recent decision, the Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) admitted trademark registration for the Polaroid Photo Frame design mark (see below) in relation to services of photo printing, digital on-demand printing, processing of photographic films, photographic retouching (class 40).
[Appeal case no. 2017-9599, Gazette issue date: June 28, 2018]

 

Polaroid Photo Frame

Disputed mark (see below), apparently looking like Polaroid Photo Frame, was filed in the name of PLR IP Holdings, LLC, the ex-owner of the Polaroid brand and related intellectual property, by covering services of photo printing, digital on-demand printing, processing of photographic films, photographic retouching under class 40 on June 24, 2015.

As a result of substantive examination by the JPO examiner, disputed mark was refused due to a lack of inherent distinctiveness based on Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law.

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

Any trademark to be used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant may be registered, unless the trademark:
(vi)　is in addition to those listed in each of the preceding items, a trademark by which consumers are not able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.

 

Appeal Board decision

The Appeal Board sided with applicant and overruled examiner’s refusal decision by stating that the Board could not detect actual use of the applied design as a representation of shape or quality in connection with the designated services.

Besides, it is questionable to conclude that disputed mark, a combination of White Square and black rectangle, solely consists of a very simple and common sign. If so, the Board considers disputed mark is capable of serving as a source indicator so that consumers may distinguish the source with the clue of disputed mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board admitted trademark registration of the Polaroid Photo Frame device mark in class 40.

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).

Aston Villa lost trademark battle over rampant lion emblem

Posted on

In a trademark battle over rampant lion emblem, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Aston Villa Football Club Limited, one of the oldest and most successful football clubs in English football, holding that relevant consumers are unlikely to consider the opposed rampant lion device mark (see below) confusingly similar to Aston Villa’s club badge.
[Opposition case no. 2017-900318, Gazette issued date: June 29, 2018]

 

Rampant lion device mark

Opposed mark, consisting of a rampant lion device facing left, thrusting out its tongue, and extending its tail vertically, was filed on February 7, 2017 by designating clothing, shoes, sportswear and sports shoes in class 25 and other two classes (12 and 35).
JPO admitted trademark registration on July 28, 2017 [TM registration no. 5966695] and published it for opposition on August 22, 2017.

Trademark Opposition

Aston Villa Football Club Limited opposed registration based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law, asserting that opposed mark is confusingly similar to Aston Villa’s senior IR registration no. 1296488 effective in Japan for the mark of opponent’s club badge (see below).

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.

Where opposed mark is considered similar to opponent mark and designated goods of opposed mark is identical with or similar to that of opponent mark, opposed mark shall be retroactively cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xi). In this regard, since IR no. 1296488 covers clothing, footwear, replica shirts, football boots, polo shirts, shoes for sports etc. in class 25, similarity of goods is undisputable in the case.

 

Board decision

The Opposition Board denied similarity between the marks on the grounds that:

  1. Regardless of similarity in basic configuration of a rampant lion facing left, there exist some distinctive features in depiction of head, tongue, ear, and tail as well as length of the legs.
  2. Rampant lion has been frequently used in heraldry. Therefore, relatively the lion design will not be a material factor in the assessment of mark similarity.
  3. Opponent mark can be perceived as a crest combining “AVFC” and rampant lion design.
  4. In the meantime, opposed mark shall not give rise to a meaning of crest, and relevant consumers with an ordinary care can easily discriminate both marks from appearance due to such distinctive features and overall impression.

 

Accordingly, JPO sided with opposed mark and decided it shall not be cancelled based on Article 4(1)(xi) in relation to opponent mark.

Straight Wings Emblem Trademark Battle

Posted on

In a recent trademark decision regarding straight wings emblem on automobiles, the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by BENTLEY MOTORS LIMITED and ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA LIMITED against trademark registration no. 5962270 for a combined mark consisting of “M78 86” and straight wings device due to unlikelihood of confusion.
[Opposition case no. 2017-900293, Gazette issued date: May 17, 2018]

TM registration no. 5962270

Disputed mark (see below) was applied for registration on December 8, 2016 by designating automobiles and other goods in class 12.

Tsubuyara Productions CO., Ltd, a Japanese company, famous for the creator of Ultraman (Japanese Superhero) is a co-applicant of disputed mark.

A month after the filing, during the Press Conference held at Tokyo Auto Salon 2017, Toyota’s new M78 x 86 concept car was unveiled. Toyota, as a car supplier collaborating with Ultraman, aimed to make people “feel like Ultraman”.

“86” is a name for Toyota sports coupe. “M78” comes from Nebula M78, a home world of Ultraman, thirteen million light years away from the earth.

Disputed mark was created to represent the collaboration between Toyota and Tsuburaya.

Opposition

JPO granted registration of the mark on July 7, 2017.

To oppose the mark, Bentley, the most sought after luxury car brand in the world, and Aston Martin, iconic luxury British sports car manufacturer, filed an opposition on the grounds that disputed mark is likely to cause confusion with opponents’ business due to close resemblance and famousness of opponent mark based on Article 4(1)(x), (xi), (xv), (xix) of the Trademark Law.

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 popularity and reputation of Opponent emblem as a source indicator of opponent’s business among relevant consumers in the fields of automobiles, however, totally negated similarity of both marks from the perspective of appearance, pronunciation, and concept. Besides, finding that relevant consumers with an ordinary care would pay particular attention to the mark in procuring expensive goods, such as cars, the Board held that a mere graphical resemblance of straight wings is insufficient to find a likelihood of confusion since even opponents are co-existing in peace regardless of the similar straight wings.
Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks and allowed the “M78 86” straight wings mark valid.