HERMES INTERNATIONAL, a French luxury fashion house, is in a legal battle to register its iconic packaging colors, orange and brown, as a color mark in Japan.
Color mark of Hermes box
On October 25, 2018, HERMES INTERNATIONAL filed a trademark application for its iconic packaging colors, orange and brown (see below), as a color mark to be used on various goods in class 3, 14, 16, 18, and retail services in class 35 with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) [TM application no. 2018-133223].
Article 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(vi)
The JPO examiner rejected the color mark under Article 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law by stating that colors per se are unlikely to play a role in source indicator because they are frequently aimed to attract consumers in association with function or quality of goods and services. Because of it, relevant consumers at the sight of goods or services bearing the applied color would not see the combination of colors, orange and brown, as a source indicator.
Acquired Distinctiveness
Hermes argued acquired distinctiveness of the color combination as a result of substantial use on Hermes box for the past six decades from the 1960s onward.
A bottleneck is that the Hermes box contains its name “HERMES” and horse and carriage logo as a conspicuous source indicator. Hermes conducted market research to demonstrate the acquired distinctiveness of the packaging color per se. The research targeted high-income men and women in their 30s to 50s with incomes JPY10,000,000 and above. According to the research report, 36.9% of the interviewees answered Hermes when shown three boxes in different shapes with the color mark. 43.1% chose Hermes from ten options.
JPO Rejection
The JPO examiner did not find the research persuasive to support acquired distinctiveness among relevant consumers of the goods and services in question.
The examiner stated the relevant consumers shall not be limited to the high-income class. Besides, even among high-income consumers, more than half of them did not link the color to Hermes. From the research, it is doubtful if relevant consumers would conceive the color per se as a source indicator.
Based on the above findings, the examiner totally rejected the applied color mark under Article 3(1)(iii) and (vi) on July 9, 2021.
HERMES INTERNATIONAL filed an appeal against the rejection on October 8, 2021.
In a recent decision, the Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s rejection and decided to register the wordmark “F1” in standard character by finding acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator in relation to automobile races in class 41.
[Appeal case no. 2021-1819, Decision date: November 5, 2021]
F1
Formula One Licensing BV, managing the trademarks for the FIA Formula One World Championship, applied wordmark “F1” in standard character for use on ‘organization, arranging and conducting of automobile races; providing information relating to automobile races’ in class 41 on May 7, 2018 (TM App no. 2018-58985).
Article 3(1)(v)
The JPO examiner rejected the mark “F1” because of lack of inherent distinctiveness based on Article 3(1)(v) of the Japan Trademark Law on the grounds that a sign consisting of a digit and an alphabet is commonly used in transactions to represent article number, model number or standards. If so, the applied mark shall not play a role in a specific source indicator.
Article 3(1)(v) prohibits any mark from registering if it solely consists of a very simple and common sign.
Trademark Examination Guidelines (TEG) sets forth that a mark consisting of one or two alphabetical letters followed by a numeral, e.g. “A2”, “AB2”, is unregistrable under the article.
Followings are also enumerated as unregistrable marks under the article.
Numerals
One or two alphabetical letters, e.g. “AA”
Two alphabetical letters combined with “-” or “&”, e.g. “A-B”, “C&D”
One or two alphabetical letters accompanied by “Co.”, e.g. “AB Co.”
A numeral followed by one or two alphabetical letters, e.g. “2A”
The applicant filed an appeal against the refusal and argued the distinctiveness of the “FS12” mark.
Formula One Licensing BV filed an appeal against the refusal and argued acquired distinctiveness of the “F1” mark on February 9, 2021.
JPO Appeal Board decision
The Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s finding that the applied mark “F1” inherently lacks distinctiveness as a source indicator and shall not be registered under Article 3(1)(v).
In the meantime, the Board found the mark has acquired distinctiveness as a result of substantial use in relation to automobile races to indicate Formula One for more than seven decades. The Board could not find a single fact that the term “F1” has been used in relation to the services in question by any entity unrelated to the applicant. If so, the Board has a reasonable ground to believe that relevant consumers and traders would conceive the mark “F1” as a source indicator of Formula One and shall be exceptionally registered under Article 3(2).
Article 3(2)
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a trademark that falls under any of items (iii) to (v) of the preceding paragraph may be registered if, as a result of the use of the trademark, consumers are able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.
Based on the above findings, the Board overturned the examiner’s rejection and granted protection of the wordmark “F1” in standard character for use on services relating to automobile races in class 41.
In an advisory opinion on trademark dispute over world-famous “Damier’s pattern”, the Japan Patent Office did not side with LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER. [Case no. 2020-695001, Gazette issued date: September 24, 2021]
IR 952582 Damier’s pattern
In 1888, a French luggage maker Louis Vuitton began putting a canvas checkerboard print on its travel goods. A “distinctive checkered pattern of light and dark colors” named Damier meant to indicate the source of the products, which has been in use since then and “has been one of the biggest successes of Louis Vuitton,” according to the Paris-based luxury goods giant.
IR no. 952582
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER has owned IR no. 952582 for the Damier pattern on ‘Boxes of leather or imitation leather, trunks, suitcases, traveling sets (leather goods), traveling bags, luggage, garment bags for travel, hatboxes, vanity cases not fitted, toilet-cases, rucksacks, satchels, handbags, beach bags, shopping bags, sling bags, carrier bags, shoulder bags, waist bags, purses, cases, of leather or leatherboard: briefcases (leather goods), portfolio satchels, pochettes, wallets, change purses, key cases, card cases and holders (wallets), umbrellas, parasols’ in class 18 since 2008.
Ichimatsu Moyo (Traditional Japanese checkered pattern)
As you may remember, the logos for the Olympic and Paralympic Games Tokyo 2020 are based on Japanese checkered patterns. The stylish logo designs feature a popular checkered pattern which during the Edo period (1603-1867) was known as “Ichimatsu Moyo” and used the traditional Japanese color of indigo blue.
Because of its traditional background, the Ichimatsu patterns have been used on various goods even now.
Kanbe Prayer Beads Co., Ltd., a Kyoto-based merchant, has promoted cases and pouches for prayer beads (Juzu) or stamp books to keep seals given at temples and shrines for visitors (Gosyuin-Cho) that depict checkered patterns on the outer material of respective goods.
Screen capture from https://www.kyoto-kanbejuzu.co.jp/productsichimatsu.html
In order to prevent LOUIS VUITTON from alleging trademark infringement and secure incontestable status, Kanbe Prayer Beads asked the JPO for an advisory opinion on September 4, 2020.
Advisory Opinion (Hantei)
The Japan Trademark Law has provision for the Japan Patent Office to give advisory opinions about the scope of trademark right upon request under Article 28.
Proceedings of the advisory opinion system are almost the same as invalidation trials. Upon request from either party, the JPO appoints three examiners and orders the opposite party to answer the request in writing. Board seldom holds an oral hearing to investigate the case. In general, all proceedings are based on written statements and documentary evidence.
The advisory opinion by JPO does not have a binding effect, unlike the judicial decision. Accordingly, less than 10 trademark cases have been lodged with the JPO to seek the advisory opinion annually.
JPO Opinion
On April 21, 2021, the JPO provided its advisory opinion to the case by stating that:
Article 26(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law provides trademark rights shall not be enforceable against any sign that consumers are unable to recognize it as a source indicator of goods or services in question.
It is unquestionable that the checkered pattern in dispute, represented on the disputed goods overall in series, has the same pattern with Ichimatsu Moyo that has been known to the public as one of traditional Japanese patterns and motifs.
Besides, Article 3(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law prohibits the registration of a trademark solely consisting of a pattern in series to be considered as background design due to a lack of distinctiveness.
If so, it is highly likely that relevant consumers at the sight of goods bearing the checkered pattern in question would just conceive of Ichimatsu Moyo, one of the traditional Japanese patterns by taking account of the fact that the goods are promoted with the word “Ichimatsu” on the advertisement.
Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the checkered pattern in dispute would not fall within the scope of LV Damier’s pattern trademark right since consumers are unable to recognize the pattern as a source indicator of the goods in question under Article 26 (1)(vi) of the Trademark Law.
The Japan Patent Office (JPO) affirmed the examiner’s refusal and decided to reject a wordmark “FS12” due to a lack of inherent distinctiveness. [Appeal case no. 2019-650019, Gazette issued date: January 29, 2021]
“FS12”
Fette Compacting GmbH filed a trademark application with the JPO via the Madrid Protocol (IR no. 1349196) for word mark “FS12” (see below) for use on goods of ‘Compression tools (parts of machines for the pharmaceutical industry, chemical industry, food industry, and metal industry) for producing pellets and tablets; die-table segments (parts of machines for the pharmaceutical industry, chemical industry, food industry, and metal industry) for rotary presses’ in class 7
Article 3(1)(v) of the Trademark Law
The JPO examiner refused the “FS12” mark in contravention of Article 3(1)(v) of the Trademark Law.
The article prohibits any mark from registering if it consists solely of a very simple and common mark.
Trademark Examination Guidelines (TEG)stipulates that a mark consisting of one or two alphabetical letters followed by a numeral, e.g. “A2”, “AB2”, is unregistrable under the article.
Followings are also enumerated as unregistrable marks under the article.
Numerals
One or two alphabetical letters, e.g. “AA”
Two alphabetical letters combined with “-” or “&”, e.g. “A-B”, “C&D”
One or two alphabetical letters accompanied by “Co.”, e.g. “AB Co.”
A numeral followed by one or two alphabetical letters, e.g. “2A”
The applicant filed an appeal against the refusal and argued distinctiveness of the “FS12” mark.
Appeal Board decision
However, the JPO Appeal Board dismissed the entire allegations and held that a mark consisting of a numeral and one or two alphabetical letters is incapable of identifying the source of the goods since the relevant public would perceive, without further thought, it to indicate a value, code, type, model or standard of the goods in question.
As a matter of fact, the Board found the combination of alphabetical letters, and a numeral is frequently used to indicate a value, code, type, model, or standard of the goods in relevant industries.
Given the mark “FS12” consists of two alphabetical letters and two digits written in regular font, the Board considers it is unlikely to play a role of source indicator and shall be unregistrable in contravention of Article 3(1)(v) of the Trademark Law.
To my knowledge, “FS12” would be mostly considered distinctive in other jurisdictions. Please be noted that a combination of one or two alphabetical letters and the numeral is deemed descriptive in relation to any kind of goods in Japan. To register such a mark, it is required to add a descriptive element or demonstrate acquired distinctiveness as a result of substantial use in Japan.
The Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s refusal and decided to register the “El Clasico” mark in connection with sporting activities, production of sports events, sports information services, and other services of class 41 by finding the term shall not be recognized as football matches between FC Barcelona and Real Madrid C.F. [Appeal case no. 2019-650060, Gazette issued date: October 30, 2020]
El Clasico
“El Clasico” is a magical phrase to make football fans passionate, emotional, and excited. The meaning of El Clasico is the Spanish name that is given to any football match between fierce Spanish rivals Real Madrid and Barcelona FC. The literal translation of El Clasico is ‘The Classic’. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, “El Clasico” is defined as ‘any of the games played between the football teams Real Madrid and Barcelona’. Being that this rivalry can be dated back to the 1930s and ever since then, it is one of the most viewed annual sporting events.
Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional, the administrator of the Spanish football league, aka LaLiga, applied for registration of the “El Clasico” mark (see below) in relation to sporting activities, production of sports events, sports information services, and other services of class 41 via the Madrid Protocol (IR No. 1379292).
On August 15, 2019, the JPO examiner refused the applied mark due to a lack of distinctiveness in contravention of Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law. Examiner asserted that the term “El Clasico” gets to be known as football matches between FC Barcelona and Real Madrid C.F. If so, relevant consumers would conceive that services bearing the applied mark just relate to football matches between two teams. In this respect, the applied mark shall not be registrable based on Article 4(1)(xvi) as well since the consumers would mistake its nature when used on service unrelated to football matches between two teams.
LaLiga filed an appeal against the refusal
on November 15, 2019.
JPO Appeal Board’s decision
The Appeal Board overturned the examiner’s decision by stating that relevant consumers and traders at the sight of the applied mark are unlikely to see the mark to represent football matches between indicate FC Barcelona and Real Madrid C.F. immediately when used on services in question.
Taking into account less familiarity with the Spanish language among relevant consumers in Japan and the literal meaning of ‘The Classic’, the Board found the term “El Clasico” would be conceived as a coined word in its entirety. Furthermore, the Board could not identify any fact that the term is commonly used to represent a specific nature or quality in connection with the services in question.
Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded
the refusal shall be disaffirmed since the examiner erroneously found the applied
mark “El Clasico”.
Japan opened the gate to Non-Traditional trademark, namely, color, sound, position, motion, hologram, in April 2015. It seems true that, beyond expectation, JPO has a significantly high hurdle to clear.
543 applications for color marks were filed with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) as of now (Nov 15, 2020). Among them, only 8 color marks are allowed for registration.
1. Tombow Pencil “MONO” (stationery)
2. Seven-Eleven (convenience store)
3. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group
(financial service)
4. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group
(financial service)
5. Mitsubishi Pencil “UNI” (pencil)
6. Mitsubishi Pencil “HI-UNI” (pencil)
7. Family Mart (convenience store)
8. UCC Ueshima Coffee (canned coffee)
All the registered color marks consist of more than two colors. JPO has yet to register a single case of color per se.
Most single-color marks are rejected due to a lack of distinctiveness and failure to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness. Surprisingly, 492 applications (90.6%) are already rejected or voluntarily withdrawn by the applicant.
Red Bull was unsuccessful in registering a combination of dark blue and silver on energy drinks in class 32.
Hermes also failed to register a three-color combination over various goods in class 14, 18, and 25.
43 applications are in review with the JPO as of now. Remarkably, Christian Louboutin fights for the appeal against the refusal of its iconic red-sole.
On August 27, 2020, the Japan IP High Court ruled to affirm the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decision and rejected TM application no. 2016-34650 for a position mark consisting of fourteen open ellipses built-in grip section of cutting combs in class 21 due to a lack of inherent distinctiveness. [Court case no. Reiwa1(Gyo-ke)10143]
YS Park Cutting Comb
The YS Park Cutting Comb features a non-slip grip section with fourteen air ellipses spaced in 1cm intervals to allow for great flexibility and sectioning.
Allegedly, the comb has been distributed in
many countries and its annual sales increased to 170,000~27,000 pieces for the
last five years.
Position Mark
Plaintiff, a Japanese corporation to distribute the YS Park Cutting Comb since 1989, sought for registration for fourteen open ellipses built-in grip section of the Cutting Comb as a Position Mark (see below) on March 28, 2016.
In Japan, by an enactment of the New Trademark Law in 2014, new types of mark, namely, color, sound, position, motion, hologram, was allowed for trademark registration since April 2015.
JPO decision
On September 17, 2019, the JPO refused the position mark under Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law by finding that there are plenty of competitor’s combs with a design, pattern, hole, or pit in short intervals on the grip section and it gives rise to an impression of the decorative or functional linear pattern as a whole. If so, relevant consumers at the sight of cutting comb bearing the position mark would just conceive it as a pattern for decorative or functional indication, not as a source indicator. Besides, consecutive use on the YS Park Cutting Comb over a decade would be insufficient to acquire secondary meaning from the produced evidence and business practice in relation to cutting comb. [Appeal case no. 2018-8775]
Article 3(1)(vi) is a provision to
comprehensively prohibit from registering any mark lacking inherent
distinctiveness.
Any trademark to be used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant may be registered, unless the trademark: (vi) is in addition to those listed in each of the preceding items, a trademark by which consumers are not able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.
To contend, the applicant filed a lawsuit to the IP High Court on October 29, 2019, and demanded cancellation of the decision.
IP High Court Ruling
This is the 2nd court case for the IP High Court to hear the registrability of Position Mark.
At the outset, the court stated the distinctiveness of Position Mark shall be assessed as a whole by taking account of a constituent of the mark and its position on goods or services.
The court upheld fact-findings by the JPO that plenty of competitors advertise and provide cutting combs with a pattern, pit, or open holes in short intervals on the grip section to enhance its function. In this regard, it is unlikely that relevant consumers (general consumers on the case) would consider the whole pattern as a source indicator of the comb. The court pointed that plaintiff has promoted features of fourteen open ellipses on YS Park Cutting Comb with an advertisement of “Air Suspension Function” in fact. If so, consumers would find the open holes as a functional indication.
Plaintiff produced interviews and statements by beauticians, hairstylists, school officials/staff of Cosmetology and Beauty school and argued the secondary meaning of the Position mark, however, the court negated the allegation on the ground that such evidence is insufficient and irrelevant to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness since the goods in question shall be broadly targeted to general consumers. Thus, the court decided the JPO did not error in finding secondary meaning in the case.
On 23 June 2020, the Japan IP High Court decided a case concerning a single color mark that was rejected for registration by the Appeal Board of the Japan Patent Office (“JPO”).
Single Color Mark
On 1 April 2015, Hitachi Construction Machinery (“Hitachi”) filed an application for trademark registration with JPO consisting of a single color per se, namely orange (Munsell: 0.5YR5.6/11.2) over the goods of hydraulic excavators, wheel loaders, road loaders, loaders [earch moving machines] in class 7, and rigid dump trucks in class 12 (TM Application no. 2015-29999).
TM Application No. 2015-29999
By the decision of 19 September 2019, the Appeal
Board of JPO declared the applied color mark to be refused in contravention of Article
3(1)(iii) and Article 3(2) of the Trademark Law, finding that the
graphic representation of the color mark constituted the “mere single orange
color, without contours”. If so, the mark is not inherently distinctive
and it is lacking acquired distinctiveness. In the course of the appeal trial,
Hitachi amended and restricted the designated goods to “hydraulic excavators”.
Article 3(2) is a provision to allow registration of any mark with which the relevant public will associate a particular source, manufacturer, or producer over time through the trademark owner’s usage.
On 30 October 2019, Hitachi appealed
against the JPO decision.
IP High Court decision
At the outset, the court stated it is inevitable
on the case concerning single color mark to take the interest of competitors who
deal with the goods in question into consideration since allowing one trader to
exclusively use this color would likely to cause unjust competitive practice in
form of monopolistic power of use in favor of one trader only.
From the produced evidence, Hitachi has allegedly used the color in question on hydraulic excavators and other construction machines since 1974.
Hitachi Hydraulic Excavators
Hitachi consecutively holds a 20% market share (14.6%) of hydraulic excavators over the past four decades in Japan. The research showed that approx. 95.9 % (185 out of 193) of traders in the construction industry were able to associate the color with Hitachi.
In the meantime, several competitors use similar color on hydraulic excavators
In the decision, the court found orange color is one of the colors commonly seen in our daily life. Besides, the Japan Industrial Standard (JIS) adopts orange as a safety sign-color aiming to prevent harm to the human body and damage to properties. Because of it, at construction sites, we often see several items colored in orange, e.g. helmets, rain suits, guard fens, work clothes, tower cranes, construction vehicles.
Hitachi Hydraulic Excavators have other colors, in fact, namely, a house mark “HITACHI” colored in white, buckets (attachments), cockpits, and crawlers colored in black. If so, the applied mark shall be capable of playing the role of source indicator in combination with these. Thus, the court would not find reasonable grounds to believe that the orange color per se acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator of Hitachi’s Hydraulic Excavators.
The court even suspected credibility of the research by finding that it narrowly targeted traders or consumers who own more than 10 hydraulic excavators, precisely it showed 36.8% in light of initial research number of targets, 502 persons, and the questionnaire ‘Please answer. What maker do you think hydraulic excavator is?” was insufficient to conclude acquired distinctiveness since its answer may simply suggest one of the colors of Hitachi’s Hydraulic Excavators.
Even if hydraulic excavators market in Japan is an oligopoly with five makers accounting for 90 % of the industry share, and the orange color has been consecutively used by Hitachi only, it does not mean every competitor agreed to refrain from using the color given orange has been used on various goods in the construction and agriculture industry in general.
Based on the foregoing, the court affirmed the JPO decision and dismissed Hitachi’s allegations in contravention of Article 3(1)(iii) and 3(2).
Thus, it is obvious that a very high standard of distinctiveness needs to be attached to a single-color mark if the same has to be claimed for trademark protection.
This case was a second court decision concerning a single color mark. The first case, Reiwa1(Gyo-ke)10119 ruled on March 11, 2020, also ended with the rejection of a single orange color mark in contravention of other ground, Article 3(1)(vi).
How JPO Examines Color Marks
As of now (12 July 2020), 543 color marks were applied for registration with JPO since the commencement of the Non-Traditional trademark application in April 2015. So far, only 8 marks are successfully registered. See below.
In sum, the registration rate of color mark is barely 1.5%! It is noteworthy none of a ‘single’ color mark has been granted to registration.
On June 17, 2020, the Japan IP High Court affirmed the JPO’s rejection of the “I♡JAPAN” mark in relation to various goods of class 14,16,18 and 24 due to a lack of distinctiveness. [Judicial case no. Reiwa 1(Gyo-ke)10164]
I♡JAPAN
The disputed mark consists of the capital letter “I”, followed by a red heart symbol, below which are the capital letters “JAPAN” (see below). The mark filed by CREWZ COMPANY, a Japanese merchant on April 17, 2018, over various goods in class 14, 16, 18, and 24 [TM application no. 2018-049161].
Noticeably, the JPO already allowed trademark registration for the same mark on apparels in class 25 on March 27, 2015, filed by the applicant [TM Registration no. 5752985]. Regardless of it, the examiner refused disputed mark in contravention of Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law.
Article 3(1)(vi) is a provision to comprehensively prohibit from registering
any mark lacking inherent distinctiveness.
Any trademark to be used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant may be registered, unless the trademark: (vi) is in addition to those listed in each of the preceding items, a trademark by which consumers are not able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.
JPO decision
The JPO Appeal Board sustained the examiner’s refusal and decided to reject disputed mark by stating that we are nowadays accustomed to finding goods bearing the “I♡” logo followed by a geographical indication, which represents a strong devotion or attachment to the area/city in its entirety. In fact, the “I♡JAPAN” design is commonly used on several goods as a symbol to support the Japanese sports team or souvenirs for tourists. If so, the design shall not be exclusively occupied by a specific entity. Under the circumstances, relevant consumers are unlikely to conceive the disputed mark as a source indicator of the applicant. Thus, the mark shall be rejected in contravention of Article 3(1)(vi) and the examiner did not error. [Appeal case no. 2018-16957]
To contend against the decision, the applicant filed an appeal to the IP High Court.
IP High Court ruling
The IP High Court dismissed the applicant’s allegation entirely, stating that the disputed mark gives rise to the meaning of “I love JAPAN”. The court found the “I♡” logo followed by a geographical indication is commonly used to appeal a strong devotion or attachment to the area/city. Inter alia, various merchants promote goods bearing the “I♡JAPAN” design as a sign of their support to Japan or the Japanese sports team. If so, relevant consumers and traders would not conceive disputed mark as a source indicator of goods in question, but merely a symbol to represent their devotion and support to Japan. Therefore, the disputed mark shall not be registrable under n contravention of Article 3(1)(vi).
Besides, the court found the fact of a precedent registration for the same mark in a different class would not affect the distinctiveness of disputed mark since it does not have a legal effect to bind subsequent examination in assessing registrability of a junior mark under Article 3(1)(vi).
On May 20, 2020, the Japan IP High Court denied the JPO decision and sided with Apple Inc. by finding the “CORE ML” mark is dissimilar to senior trademark registration no. 5611369 for word mark “CORE” in connection with computer software of class 9. [Case no. Reiwa1(Gyo-ke)10151]
CORE ML
Apple Inc. filed a trademark application
for word mark “CORE ML” in standard character by designating computer software
in class 9 on November 6, 2017 (TM App no. 2017-145606).
Apple’s Core ML is its own framework for
Machine Learning used across Apple products for performing fast prediction or
inference with easy integration of pre-trained machine learning models on the
edge, which allows you to perform real-time predictions of live images or video
on the device.
JPO decision
The Japan Patent Office (JPO) rejected “CORE ML” in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law due to a conflict with senior trademark registration no. 5611369 for word mark “CORE” in standard character over electronic machines, computer software, and other goods in class 9 owned by Seiko Holdings Corporation.
Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit from registering a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.
In the decision, the JPO stated applied mark apparently consists of two words, “CORE” and “ML”. The term “CORE”, a familiar English word meaning ‘a central and foundational part’, would play a role of source indicator in connection with the goods in question. In the meantime, “ML” is a descriptive term since it is commonly used as an abbreviation of ‘Machine Learning’ in the computer software industry. If so, it is permissible to select the term “CORE” as a dominant portion of applied mark and compare it with the cited mark “CORE”.
To contend against the decision, Apple Inc.
filed an appeal to the IP High Court.
IP High Court ruling
The IP High Court, at the outset, referred to the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 which established the criterion to grasp a composite mark in its entirety in the assessment of similarity of the mark.
“Where a mark in dispute is recognized as a composite mark consisting of two elements or more, it is not permissible to assess the similarity of mark simply by means of taking out an element of the composite mark and then comparing such element with the other mark, unless consumers or traders are likely to perceive the element as a dominant portion indicating its source of origin of goods/service, or remaining elements truly lack inherent distinctiveness as a source indicator in view of sound and concept.”
Based on the criteria, the court found that applied mark
shall be assessed in its entirety on the following grounds:
“CORE” would be merely recognized as a term to mean ‘a central and foundational part’ in connection with goods in question.
It is unlikely that relevant consumers at the sight of “CORE ML” used on computer software conceive the term “ML” as an abbreviation of ‘machine learning’. If so, “ML” would not give rise to any specific meaning.
The above facts suggest that “CORE” would never play a dominant role and “ML” shall not be considered less distinctive than “CORE” as a source indicator in view of the concept.
From appearance and sound, there is no reasonable ground to believe “CORE” and “ML” shall be recognized individual and separable.
Based on the foregoing, the court pointed out the JPO erred in finding applied mark appropriately and decided that the applied mark “CORE ML” is deemed dissimilar to the cited mark “CORE” as a whole given the remarkable difference in sound and appearance, even if both marks resemble in concept.
