タグ: Article 4(1)(xi)

Volkswagen Unsuccessful in TM Opposition contesting similarity between Touran and TURANO

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition against TM Reg no. 6754807 “TURANO” in class 12 claimed by Volkswagen AG due to dissimilarity to IR no. 782978 “Touran” that has been used on the VW’s compact vans.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900017, decided on August 28, 2024]

TURANO

The opposed mark, consisting of a wordmark “TURANO” in standard character, was filed by DAIDO KOGYO Co., Ltd. for use on drive chains, transmission chains and belts, and other parts and accessories for land vehicles including automobiles in class 12 with the JPO on May 9, 2023.

The JPO examiner granted protection of the mark “TURANO” on October 31, 2023 without issuing any notice of grounds for refusal. The mark was published for a post-grant opposition on November 27, 2023.

Opposition by VW

Volkswagen AG filed an opposition against the mark “TURANO” on January 23, 2024 before the lapse of a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date.

Volkswagen claimed the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision that prohibits the registration of a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, any earlier registered mark.

Volkswagen argued that the opposed mark “TURANO” is similar to IR no. 782978 for wordmark “Touran” in standard character. Besides, the goods in question are identical with or similar to “automobiles and parts of the aforementioned goods; coupling and transmission components for land vehicles; engines for land vehicles” that are designated under IR no. 782978.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board denied similarity of the mark “TURANO” and “Touran” by stating that:

  1. Appearance
    • Two marks are relatively short, since each consists of six letters. There are the differences in spelling as well as a type of letter. Namely, the opposed mark consists only of upper-case letters, while the cited mark consists of upper-case and lower-case letters. Therefore, there is no risk of confusion between two marks in terms of appearance.
  2. Sound
    • Aurally, the first sound of the cited mark is pronounced with a long tone. In addition, there is a clear difference between the final sound “no” and “n”. In a relatively short form, these differences have a significant impact on the overall sound to the extent that the relevant consumers are able to easily distinguish two sounds easily. Therefore, there is no likelihood of confusion.
  3. Concept
    • A conceptual comparison is neutral as neither “TURANO” not “Touran” have any clear meaning.
  4. Conclusion
    • Even if the conceptual aspect does not have impact on the assessment of similarity since both marks are meaningless, the Board has a reason to believe that both marks are considered dissimilar because of less likelihood of confusion in appearance and sound.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to dismiss the entire opposition by Volkswagen and granted registration of the opposed mark as the status quo.

Trademark dispute: VALENTINO GARAVANI vs GIANNI VALENTINO

Posted on

In a trademark opposition claimed by Valentino S.p.A. against TM Reg no. 6550051 for the GIANNI VALENTINO mark, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to cancel the registration due to a conflict with earlier IR no. 975800 for the VALENTINO GARAVANI mark.
[Opposition case no. 2022-900274, decided on August 23, 2024]

GIANNI VALENTINO

YOUNG SANGYO CO., LTD filed a trademark application with the JPO on November 10, 2021 for a mark consisting of a “V” device in a circle and the word “GIANNI VALENTINO” (see below) for use on footwear in class 25 [TM App no. 2021-140169].

The applicant, as one of the official licensees, has been distributing bags and pouches bearing the applied mark in the Japanese market.

https://shop.gianni-valentino.com/

The JPO examiner granted registration of the applied mark on April 19, 2022. The mark was published for a post-grant opposition on May 11, 2022 [TM Reg no. 6550051].

Opposition by Valentino S.p.A.

Valentino S.p.A. filed an opposition on July 6, 2022 and claimed cancellation of the GIANNI VALENTINO mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law on the ground that the contested mark is confusingly similar to earlier IR no. 975800 for a mark consisting of an iconic “V” device in a circle and the words “VALENTINO” and “GARAVANI” arranged in two lines (see below), which designates footwear and other goods in class 25.

Valentino argued that the literal element “VALENTINO” was dominant in the cited mark because of a high degree of recognition as a source indicator of the opponent’s business as a result of substantial and continuous use in relation to fashion industries. Therefore, relevant consumers with an ordinary care are likely to consider the term “VALENTINO” as a prominent portion of the contested mark when used on the goods in question. If so, the contested mark shall be deemed similar to the cited mark from visual, aural and conceptual points of view.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that the mark “VALENTINO” is famous among relevant consumers and traders in Japan for apparel.

The Board noted the contested mark can be dissected into individual parts on account of its appearance and famousness of the term “VALENTINO”. Given the mark “GIANNE VALENTINO” as a whole has not been recognized among relevant consumers as a source indicator of the applicant, it is reasonable to consider the literal element “VALENTINO” as a dominant part of the contested mark, which plays a role in identifying the source of the goods in question.

Similarly, the literal element “VALENTINO” of the cited mark can be considered as a dominant part because of its famousness to indicate the opponent’s business.

It is obvious that the dominant part of both marks has the same appearance, sound and meaning. If this is the case, the Board has a reason to believe that the contested mark, even as a whole, is confusingly similar to the cited mark from a visual, aural and conceptual point of view.

Based on the above findings, the JPO sided with Valentino S.p.A. and decided to cancel the contested mark in its entirety in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi).

JPO found “Arounds” dissimilar to “AROUND” as trademark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed examiner’s rejection to TM App no. 2023-100274 “Arounds” in classes 9, 35, 41 and 42 by finding dissimilarity of mark to earlier IR no. 873694 “AROUND” in class 9.
[Appeal case no. 2024-7308, decided on August 13, 2024]

Arounds

Funny Side Up, Inc. filed a trademark application for wordmark “Arounds” in standard character for use on goods in class 9 and services in classes 35, 41, and 42 with the JPO on September 7, 2023.

The applicant uses the mark to indicate an online platform for a lifestyle exchange community.

AROUND

On February 14, 2024, the JPO examiner rejected the mark “Arounds” in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law due to a conflict with earlier IR no. 873694 for wordmark “AROUND” in class 9.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision that prohibits the registration of a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, any earlier registered mark.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection with the JPO on April 30, 2024 and argued dissimilarity of mark between “Arounds” and “AROUND”.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board found the examiner errored in finding similarity of mark and decided to reverse the rejection.

  • Assessment of the applied mark

The term “Arounds” is neither present in dictionaries nor immediately recognizable as a specific word. Therefore, the mark “Arounds” just has a sound of “Arounds”, but not any specific meaning from its component letters.

  • Assessment of the earlier mark

It is obvious that the average consumers will recognize the cited mark, comprised of the English word “AROUND”, has a sound of “AROUND” and a meaning of ‘positioned or moving in or near a place’ from its constituent letters.

  • Comparison of two marks

From appearance, two marks share the same term “Around” at the beginning. However, the term “AROUND”, a commonly known English word among consumers, has been rarely represented or used in the plural form. If so, the Board has a reason to believe that, on account of the presence of a letter “s” at the end of the applied mark, relevant consumers will consider two marks represent different words and thus it is possible for the consumers to visually distinguish them.

Because of aural difference in the bottom sound of “z” or “d”, it causes a discernible distinction in the overall tone and nuance so that the consumers can distinguish the sound of two marks.

Regarding conceptual comparison, the cited mark gives rise to a clear meaning, whereas the applied mark does not have any specific meaning. Therefore, there is no risk of confusion from a conceptual point of view.

Given relevant consumers can distinguish both marks from appearance and sound, and there is no likelihood of confusion in concept, the Board has a reason to believe that the applied mark “Arounds” is dissimilar to the cited mark “AROUNDS” even if when used on the same or similar goods in class 9.

  • Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to overturn the examiner’s rejection and granted registration of the applied mark.

Trademark dispute: “Ⓗ REWARDS” vs “REWARDS”

Posted on

In a recent decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) found that a junior mark consisting of Circled “H” and a word “REWARDS” is dissimilar to earlier trademark “REWARDS” and decided to overturn the examiner’s refusal.
[Appeal case no. 2024-1366, decided on August 6, 2024]

Applied mark

H WORLD HOLDINGS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. filed a trademark application with the JPO on August 2, 2022. for a mark consisting of a circled “H” device and the word “REWARDS” (see below) in connection with various services of Classes 35 and 43.

Cited mark

On December 5, 2023, the JPO examiner decided to reject the applied mark due to a conflict with earlier TM Reg no. 5017950 for wordmark “REWARDS” in standard character for use on various services in classes 35 and 39 based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registration of a junior mark that is identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection with the JPO on January 25, 2024.

JPO decision

Astonishingly, the JPO Appeal Board found the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited mark by stating that:

The applied mark is composed of the alphabet “H” in circle and a word “REWARDS”. Despite the slight separation between “H” and “REWARDS”, as these letters are represented in the same typeface and alphabets in a horizontal line, it rather gives a coherent impression in appearance.

 Although the word “REWARDS” is an English word denoting the plural form of “REWARD,” in a coherent composition like the applied mark, the applied mark will be simply recognized as representing a coined word consisting of the words “H REWARDS.”

If so, the applied mark would give rise to a sound of ‘H REWARDS’, but no specific meaning as a whole.

Comparing the applied mark with the cited mark, regardless of the fact that both marks share the word “REWARDS,” two marks are visually distinguishable by virtue of the presence or absence of the circled letter “H”.

Likewise, both marks are distinguishable in sound because of the presence or absence of the initial component sound that remarkably alters the overall tone and nuance.

From a conceptual point of view, the applied mark does not give rise to a specific meaning, whereas the cited mark has a meaning of “ something given in exchange for good behavior or good work, etc.” There is no room to find conceptual similarity between the marks.

Based on the above findings, the Board noted that the applied mark is sufficiently distinguishable from the cited mark and unlikely to cause confusion with the cited mark when used in relation to the services in question.

Therefore, even though the services sought for registration by the applied mark are deemed similar to the service designated under the cited mark, given the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited mark, it is inappropriate to apply Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

Accordingly, the Board decided to overturn the examiner’s rejection and granted protection of the applied mark.

Cobra Golf Scores Win in an Attempt to Register Mark “MIM”

Posted on

In a recent decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) Appeal Board sided with Cobra Golf Incorporated, represented by MARKS IP LAW FIRM, and disaffirmed the examiner’s rejection by finding dissimilarity between TM Reg no. 6208087 and Cobra’s mark “MIM” for use on golf clubs.
[Appeal case nos. 2023-16540, decided on July 9, 2024]

Cobra Golf “MIM”

Cobra Golf Incorporated, one of the leasing US golf club and golf equipment manufacturer, applied for registration of wordmark “MIM” in standard character with the JPO on December 7, 2020 for use on golf clubs in class 28 (TM App no. 2020-151063).

Cobra Golf uses the mark on their golf irons produced with a new innovative “MIM” technology which stands for ‘Metal Injection Molding’.

The JPO examiner rejected the mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law due to a conflict with an earlier trademark registration no. 6208087 for a composite mark consisting of the word “MIZKAN MUSEUM” with a device that can be seen as the word “MIM” (see below) in class 21 on June 30, 2023.

Marks IP Law Firm, on behalf of Cobra Golf, filed an appeal with the JPO on September 29, 2023, arguing that the cited mark is dissimilar to the word mark “MIM” because the figurative element of the cited mark would not be considered as a word “MIM” due to its stylization, but rather as a design consisting of a vertical line in between two “M” letters representing an initial letter of “MIZKAN” and “MUSEUM” respectively.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board found that the cited mark would not give rise to a pronunciation of “MIM” from the figurative element by stating that:

There is a slight possibility that the building-like figures on the left and right sides of the upper part of the cited mark will be perceived as the letter “M” from appearance. However, the Board considers that the relevant consumers are unlikely to find so because of the considerable stylization. The vertical line between the letters, combined with the fact that it is of a shorter length than the letters, will also not be identified as the letter “I.”

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the upper part of the cited mark would never be immediately recognized as representing the word “MIM” as a whole. Rather, the relevant consumers would recognize it only as a representation of a design with no specific meaning in its entirety.

Given the upper part of the cited mark has neither sound nor meaning, both marks, when considered globally, are easily distinguishable from visual, phonetical and conceptual points of view and unlikely to cause confusion when used on goods in class 28.

Based on the foregoing, the Board held that the examiner errored in applying Article 4(1)(xi) and decided to grant registration of Cobra’s mark “MIM”.

Trademark Opposition: FITBIT vs Fitbeing

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Google LLC in an opposition against TM Reg no. 6715471 for wordmark “Fitbeing” in class 14 by finding dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with “Fitbit” wearable devices.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900195, decided on June 28, 2024]

“Fitbeing”

Wordmark “Fiteing” was applied for registration in relation to “clocks and watches; watch bands and straps; stopwatches; watch cases [parts of watches]; clocks and watches, electric; chronometric instruments; presentation boxes for watches” in class 14 by a Chinese company with the JPO on January 4, 2023 (TM App no. 2023-172).

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action to the mark and granted protection on June 28, 2023. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on July 18, 2023.

Opposition by Google LLC

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Google LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on August 31, 2023.

Google argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for the wordmark “FITBIT” that has allegedly become famous as a source indication of Google’s wearable devices.

Google argued that due to the same spelling that starts with “FITB”, relevant consumers with an ordinary care would consider the opposed mark “Fitbeing” confusingly similar to the cited mark “FITBIT” from visual, aural and conceptual points of view.

By taking int consideration the high degree of reputation and popularity of the mark “FITBIT”, it is likely that the consumers would confuse a source of goods in question bearing the opposed mark with Google or their devices.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that, considering the evidence submitted, the mark “FITBIT” has not been widely recognized among the consumers to indicate Google’s wearable devices even if some of them may have known.

Secondly, the Board assessed the similarity of marks and states:

  • Comparing the marks “Fitbeing” and “FITBIT” visually, although they have the same initial letter “Fitb (FITB)”, there is a clear difference in the endings “ing” and “IT” and the number of letters is different from 8 to 6. Therefore, the two marks are visually different.
  • As regards pronunciation, although both marks have the same initial sound ‘fitbi’, they differ in the ending ‘-ing’ and ‘it’ and the number of sounds is not as long (8 and 6 sounds). This difference would make a meaningful difference in the overall pronunciation.
  • The conceptual comparison is not possible because both marks have no meaning.
  • Accordingly, the Board has reason to believe that both marks are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion, taking into account the overall consideration as well as the impressions, memories, associations of the consumers.

In light of the foregoing, the Board dismissed the entire opposition and granted status quo protection to the mark “Fitbeing” in class 14.

Trademark Opposition: HUGO vs. Hugoo

Posted on

In a recent administrative decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by German luxury fashion house Hugo Boss against Japanese TM Reg no. 6706891 for stylized word mark “Hugoo” in class 18.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900185, decided on June 11, 2024]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark, filed on May 31, 2022, by GRIT Incorporated, consists of the stylized word “Hugoo” (see below). The goods sought for registration are bags, baby carriers, sling bags for carrying babies and infants in class 18. GRIT sells sling bags for carrying babies and infants via their website.

The JPO granted protection to the mark on May 12, 2023, and published it for post-grant opposition on June 21, 2023.

Opposition by Hugo Boss

HUGO BOSS Trademark Management GmbH & Co KG filed an opposition against the opposed mark on August 21, 2023, and claimed the opposed mark “Hugoo” shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing its owned earlier trademark registration nos. 2301695, 3265268, IR776148, IR1657111, IR1676995 for the mark “HUGO”.

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

HUGO BOSS argued that a mere difference on the 2nd letter “O” in the last is trivial from visual and phonetical points of view. Accordingly, the opposed mark “Hugoo” shall be considered similar to the cited mark “HUGO”. Besides, the goods in question are all similar to designated goods under the cited marks.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board denied similarity between “HUGO” and “Hugoo” by stating that:

There is a difference in the ending ‘oo’ or ‘O’. The difference has no small effect on the visual impression of the appearance of both marks, which are composed of five and four relatively short characters. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that both marks are clearly distinguishable in appearance.

From pronunciation, it is reasonable to conclude that both sounds are clearly audible and distinguishable since respective sound of both are clearly different.

Furthermore, both marks do not give rise to a specific meaning. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the conception of them.

Accordingly, both marks are distinguishable in appearance and sound, and incomparable in concept.

By making global assessment of the impression, memory and association of respective mark given to traders and consumers as a whole, the Board has reason to believe that both marks should be considered dissimilar without any possibility of confusion.

In the event that both marks are dissimilar, the opposed mark shall not be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), even though the goods in question are similar to those of the cited marks.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismiss the entire allegations of HUGO BOSS and allowed the opposed mark “Hugoo” to survive.

SpaceX Scores Win in Trademark Invalidation Action

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Space Exploitation Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) in an attempt to revoke TM Reg no. 6613282 for the mark “SPACEX / spacex.co.jp” (cl. 25, 26) in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.
[Invalidation case no. 2023-890010, decided on June 4, 2024]

Contested mark

NDR Tech Co., Ltd. filed trademark application for a mark composed of the two word-elements “SPACEX” and “spacex.co.jp”, arranged in two lines (see below) for use on apparels and footwear in class 25 and insignias for wear, buckles for clothing, badges for wear, brooches for clothing, brassards in class 26 with the JPO on December 20, 2021 (TM App no. 2021-163633).

The JPO examiner granted protection to the mark on August 19, 2022.

Invalidation action by SpaceX

Space Exploitation Technologies Corporation, aka SpaceX, filed an invalidation action on February 15, 2023 and claimed the contested mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii), (x), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(viii) is a provision to prohibit registration of trademark that contains the representation or name of any person, famous pseudonym, professional name, or pen name of another person, or famous abbreviation thereof.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits the registration of trademarks that are likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.

SpaceX could not rely on Article 4(1)(xi) because their attempt to register the mark “SPACEX” in class 25 (TM App no. 2020-125746) was unsuccessful due to a conflict with the earlier TM Reg no. 6222450 for wordmark “SPACEX” owned by NDR Tech.

SpaceX argued that the mark “SpaceX” has been widely recognized as a commercial name of the claimant among the general public in Japan even before the time of initial application of the contested mark due to its frequent appearance in print and broadcast media.

NDR Tech asserted that the domain name “spacex.co.jp” is only available to companies registered in Japan. As the proprietor of the domain, they have a legitimate interest in registering and owning the contested mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Invalidation Board admitted that the mark “SpaceX” has become famous among the general public as an abbreviation of the claimant.

It is obvious that the contested mark contains the term “SPACEX” and “spacex”, which are known as a famous abbreviation of the claimant. Based on the fact that NDR Tech did not obtain the consent of SpaceX, the contested mark does not comply with the requirements of Article 4(1)(viii).

Bearing in mind that the mark “SpaceX” has been used on T-shirts, hoodies and caps, the Board has reasons to believe that relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of goods in question bearing the contested mark with SpaceX. If so, the contested mark shall be revoked under Article 4(1)(xv) as well.

https://shop.spacex.com/

In the decision, the Board noted ‘The fact that NDR Tech owns the domain “spacex.co.jp” is irrelevant to the invalidity of the contested mark based on the above articles.’

Chrysler Lost Trademark Opposition against “GEEP”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA US) LLC against TM Reg no. 6689119 for the mark “GEEP” with device (cl. 18, 25) due to dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with the mark “JEEP”.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900142, decided on May 31, 2024]

“GEEP”

A Japanese individual filed a trademark application for the mark “GEEP” with device (see below) for use on goods “bags and pouches; umbrellas; canes; clothing for pets” and others in class 18, and “clothing; belts; footwear; masquerade costumes; sports shoes; sportswear” and others in class 25 with the JPO on October 14, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-118091).

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action to the mark and granted protection on April 4, 2023. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on April 20, 2023.

Opposition by FCA US LLC

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, FCA US LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on June 19, 2023.

FCA argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of the JEEP mark as a source indicator of Chrysler vehicles and a high degree of similarity between the opposed mark “GEEP” and the opponent’s famous earlier registered mark “JEEP.”

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision that prohibits the registration of a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, any earlier registered mark.

FCA contended that the opposed mark “GEEP” is similar to its own trademark “JEEP,” a globally famous automobile brand given a mere difference in the first letter “G” and “J”. Besides, the goods in question are identical or similar.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits the registration of trademarks that are likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.

FCA contended that given the high degree of resemblance between the opposed mark and “JEEP”, relevant consumers of the goods in question are likely to confuse a source of goods bearing the opposed mark with the opposing party.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that the mark “JEEP” has been widely recognized among general consumers to indicate the source of FCA’s goods and business.

However, the Board found both marks dissimilar on the grounds that:

  1. There are visual distinctions in the presence and absence of the blue device and between the first letter “G” and “J”. Thees differences are significant and clearly distinguishable in appearance. Consequently, both marks are anything but confusingly similar in appearance.
  2. The opposed mark does not give rise to a specific concept, whereas the cited mark has a meaning of “FCA’s automobile brand.” Accordingly, there is no risk of confusion in concept.
  3. Relevant consumers would consider respective mark different even if both marks have the same sound, because of clear distinction in appearance and concept as well as the overall impression of both marks.

By taking account of a low degree of similarity between the opposed mark and “JEEP”, and remote association between the goods in question and automobiles, the Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse the source of goods bearing the opposed mark with “JEEP”.

Based on the above findings, the Board conclude that the opposition was without merit and thus granted protection to the opposed mark as the status quo.