タグ: Japan Trademark Law

Japan IP High Court Ruling: “Designed, Quality-controlled in France” is not equivalent to “Made in France”

Posted on

On March 22, 2022, in an appeal against the non-use cancellation decision by the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Japan IP High Court affirmed the JPO’s decision and ruled it is not construed that a disputed mark “I R O PARIS” has been used on its designated goods with a limitation of the origin ‘All made in France’ because the term is not equivalent to ‘designed, or quality-controlled in France’.

Disputed mark “I R O PARIS”

A French fashion house, IRO has registered a wordmark “I R O PARIS” on various goods e.g., jewelry, watches, leather, bags, umbrella, wallets, clothing, shoes, sports shoes, headgear in classes 14, 18, and 25 with a limitation of the origin ‘all made in France’ in 2013 (TM Reg No. 5623868).

Non-Use Cancellation

Article 50 of the Japan Trademark Law provides if a trademark registered in Japan has never been used in commerce in Japan for three consecutive years or longer after registration, the trademark is vulnerable to cancellation provided that third parties file a petition for cancellation of the trademark registration.

iROO International Co., Ltd., a Taiwanese company, filed a petition for non-use cancellation against the disputed mark on every goods of three classes on October 4, 2019.

In the cancellation action, the registrant produced evidence (order form, invoice, magazines) to demonstrate the actual use of the mark “IRO” and “www.iroparis.com” on skirts, belts, and dresses in Japan. The JPO admitted these marks are equivalent to the registered mark “I R O PARIS”. However, the JPO found the goods bearing the mark are not “made in France”, but “made in China”. If so, the disputed mark has not been precisely used on designated goods. Because of it, the Cancellation Board decided to cancel the disputed mark in whole on March 24, 2021.

IRO filed an appeal against the JPO decision on July 29, 2021, and argued the mark “IRO” has been used on goods designed by employees working at the head office in Paris (France). The head office has exclusive authority to control the quality of every item, namely, selecting suitable materials, producing samples made of materials available in Paris, securing the quality of goods made by suppliers, and storing finished goods in a warehouse in Paris before delivery. In view of actual commitment to quality control of final goods made by suppliers and common industry practice in the apparel, the goods shall be construed ‘made in France’ even if it was manufactured by an overseas supplier.

IP High Court decision

The court found the JPO did not err in fact-findings. In fact, the goods bearing the mark “IRO” were manufactured by suppliers having a place of business out of France. On the plaintiff’s website “IRO FALL WINTER 21 COLLECTION”, it mentions the product was made in China.

The disputed mark designates ‘clothing made in France’. It shall be construed the clothing was made in the territory of France. If so, the clothing made out of France would never be deemed identical to the designated goods.

The court has no reason to believe “designed, quality-controlled in France” is equivalent to ‘made in France’ in the literal interpretation of Article 50 of the Japan Trademark Law.

Based on the foregoing, the IP High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the cancellation decision.

[Judicial case no. Reiwa 3(Gyo-ke)10087]

This case teaches how important for brand owners to keep designated goods consistent with the actual business. It often happens that the goods bearing a mark containing GI are made in other countries or regions as a matter of fact. Such inconsistency may result in non-use cancellation if the designated goods limit the origin.

As an experienced trademark practitioner, I never fail to confirm the relation between goods and GI when a mark contains GI. In case a brand owner does not manufacture in the area, it is advisable to limit goods by placing more adequate terms, such as ‘designed by (area), derived from (area), using material from (area).’ Otherwise, you may lose your trademark registration in Japan as a result of non-use cancellation.

Failed Opposition against “Zara Sube Mist” by ZARA

Posted on

On March 25, 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (INDITEX), owner of the fashion brand “ZARA” against trademark registration no. 6357258 for word mark “Zara Sube Mist” in class 3 by finding dissimilarity to and less likelihood of confusion with “ZARA”.

[Opposition case no. 2021-900193]

Zara Sube Mist

The opposed mark, consisting of three words, “Zara”, “Sube”, and “Mist” in standard character, was applied for registration by IBI Inc. to be used on cosmetics in class 3 on January 30, 2020.

The JPO granted protection on February 16, 2021, and published for opposition on March 23, 2021.

The applicant is using the opposed mark on skin lotions. Click here.

It should be noted “zara zara” is a usual term to represent the condition of ‘rough skin’ in Japanese. Likewise, “sube sube” is often used to represent the condition of ‘smooth skin’. Because of it, we would conceive of skin conditions from the term “Zara Sube.”

Opposition by Inditex

Opponent, INDITEX, one of the world’s largest fashion retailers and owner of the fashion brand “ZARA”, claimed the opposed mark “Zara Sube Mist” shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier IR no. 973064 for word mark “ZARA” in relation with cosmetics of class 3.

INDITEX argued, that given “ZARA” has acquired a remarkable reputation, relevant consumers of the goods in question are likely to see the literal element “Zara” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark and thus confuse or misconceive the opposed mark with “ZARA”.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that “ZARA” has become famous among relevant consumers and traders as a source indicator of the opponent in connection with clothing.

In the meantime, the Board questioned if the opponent mark “ZARA” has acquired a certain degree of reputation and popularity in relation to cosmetics from the produced evidence.

The Board found the consumers would see the opposed mark in its entirety due to a tight combination of three words and a non-redundant sound of ‘zara-sube-mist’. Being that “ZARA” failed to prove a certain degree of reputation and popularity as a source indicator of cosmetics, the Board has a reason to believe that relevant consumers would not consider the term “Zara” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark. If so, the opposed mark just gives rise to a pronunciation of ‘zara-sube-mist’ and no specific meaning.

Based on the above findings, the Board held “Zara Sube Mist” and “ZARA” are obviously dissimilar from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view.

If so, the opposed mark “Zara Sube Mist” is unlikely to cause confusion with “ZARA” by virtue of a low degree of similarity and remote association between apparel and cosmetics even though “ZARA” has been famous for apparel brand and coined word.

In a conclusion, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations of INDITEX and allowed “Zara Sube Mist” to survive.

Trademark Parody case: Champion Defeated by Nyanpion

Posted on

On March 16, 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC against TM Reg no. 6368388 for the mark “Nyanpion” with a device due to dissimilarity to and the unlikelihood of confusion with the famous apparel brand “Champion.”

[Opposition case no. 2021-900230]

Opposed mark

A Japanese individual applied a composite mark consisting of a stylized word “Nyanpion” and a cat device (see below) for use on apparel, headgear, footwear, sports shoes, and sportswear in class 25 with the JPO on August 25, 2020.

The JPO examiner granted protection of the opposed mark on January 29, 2021, and published for opposition on April 13, 2021.

T-shirts, sweats, hoodies, and tote bags bearing the Nyanpion mark have been promoted for sale with a catchword of “Champion” parody.

I should note that “Nyan” is the sound cats make in Japan. Because of it, “Nyanpion” easily reminds us of a combination of cat sounds and “Champion”.

Opposition by Champion

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on June 14, 2021.

HBI argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of the Champion brand in relation to apparels and a high degree of similarity between the opposed mark and its owned trademark registrations (see below) to the extent that relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods in question bearing the opposed mark with “Champion”.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that the “Champion” mark has acquired a high degree of reputation as a result of substantial use in Japan for more than four decades and become famous as a source indicator of the opponent.

In the meantime, the Board negated the similarity between the marks by stating that:

From the appearance, the difference in the prefix of literal elements, “Nyanpion” and “Champion” would suffice for relevant consumers to distinguish them. The figurative element of the opposed mark represents a cat’s face. The opponent device mark gives rise to an impression of a letter “C”. If so, both marks are sufficiently distinguishable in appearance.

Phonetically, “Nyanpion” is easily distinguishable from “Champion” because of the difference in the first sound given both marks just consist of five sounds respectively.

Conceptually, the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. Meanwhile, the opponent mark has a meaning of someone or something, especially a person or animal, that has beaten all other competitors in competition and ‘famous apparel brand.’ If so, both marks are dissimilar in concept.

By virtue of a low degree of similarity, the Board found relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse or associate the source of the goods bearing the “Nyanpion” mark with “Champion” and any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations and decided the opposed mark shall remain valid as the status quo.

COCOGOLF vs COCO

Posted on

On February 28, 2022, the Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s rejection and decided to register the applied mark “COCOGOLF” in classes 25 and 28 by finding dissimilarity to Chanel’s earlier registration for the mark “COCO.”

COCOGOLF

The applied mark consists of the word “COCOGOLF” (see below).

Applicant, E-COME GROUP Co., Ltd., filed it for use on various goods in classes 18, 25, and 28 on November 27, 2022. [TM Application no. 2020-146448]

Confronting office action from the JPO, the applicant divided the application and filed a new trademark application on goods of ‘sports shoes; sportswear’ in class 25 and ‘golf bags; golf equipment in class 28 on July 2, 2021. [TM Application no. 2021-82743]

The JPO examiner rejected the mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law on October 12, 2021.

The examiner cited earlier trademark registration nos. #6169514 (cl. 25, 35) and IR699469 (cl. 25) for the wordmark “COCO” owned by Chanel SARL, and found the applied mark “COCOGOLF” is confusingly similar to the cited mark “COCO” when used on the designated goods in class 25 and 28.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on November 17, 2021, and argued for the dissimilarity in the marks.

JPO Decision

The Appeal Board found the applied mark shall be assessed in its entirety by stating:

  1. Visually, there is no reason to consider the term “COCO” as a prominent portion of the applied mark because of its configuration.
  2. The applied mark gives rise to the pronunciation of ‘coco-golf’. The whole sound can be pronounced easily in a breach.
  3. The Board has no reason to believe the term “GOLF” perse has been used to represent specific goods in relation to the goods in question.
  4. If so, relevant consumers at the sight of sports shoes, sportswear, golf bags, and golf equipment bearing the applied mark would see it as a whole, and are unlikely to consider the term “COCO” as a prominent source indicator of the applied mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found the examiner erred in finding “COCO” to be separable from “GOLF.” Consequently, the Board held the applied mark is dissimilar to the mark “COCO” and granted “COCOGOLF” registration.

[Appeal case no. 2021-15790]

Fighting Over ZOOM ROOMS

Posted on

In a recent decision, the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Zoom Video Communications Inc. and dismissed an opposition against their Japanese TM Reg no. 6377998 for the mark “zoom rooms” by finding dissimilarity to earlier trademark “ZOOM.”

[Opposition case no. 2021-900267]

ZOOM

Undoubtedly, with millions of people being forced to stay home to help stop the spread of COVID-19, Zoom, one of the dozens of video conferencing services launched in 2011, has risen to the top, thanks to intense separation measures and a profound resonance within this new social distancing culture.

When it comes to trademark, the mark “ZOOM” has been registered in Japan over goods of classes 9 and 15 by Zoom Co., Ltd., a Japanese business entity producing recording devices, multi-effects processors, effects pedals, digital mixers, and samplers since 1992.

ZOOM ROOMS

Zoom Video Communications Inc. filed a trademark application for the mark “zoom rooms” (see below) for use on various goods and services in classes 9, 38, and 42 on May 28, 2020.

The mark was granted registration on April 15, 2021, and published for opposition on May 11, 2021.

On July 9, 2021, before the lapse of a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Zoom Co., Ltd. filed an opposition. The opponent argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing their owned senior registration for the mark “ZOOM” (see below).

JPO Decision

The Opposition Board found the opposed mark gives rise to a pronunciation of ‘zuːm-ruːm’, but no specific meaning. In the meantime, the opponent’s mark gives rise to a pronunciation of ‘zuːm’ and the meaning of ‘the effect of a camera moving toward or away from a subject by using a zoom lens. From the appearance, it is unlikely that relevant consumers confuse both marks because of the severe difference in letters and configuration. Phonetically, the consumers with ordinary care can easily distinguish ‘zuːm-ruːm’ from ‘zuːm’. Conceptually, the Board has a reason to believe the opposed mark is dissimilar to the mark “ZOOM” since it does not give rise to any specific meaning at all.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found both marks are unlikely to cause confusion and are deemed dissimilar.

The Board did not agree to consider “zoom” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark by taking into account seven sounds in total and the same font, size, and intervals between respective letters of the opposed mark.

Consequently, the JPO dismissed the opposition entirely and decided the validity of the opposed mark as the status quo.

Lacoste Prevails in Trademark Parody Case

Posted on

On February 18, 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided in favor of Lacoste and canceled Japanese TM Registration No. 6289888 for a flipped crocodile device mark in class 25 due to a likelihood of confusion with the famous crocodile logo of Lacoste.

[Opposition case no. 2020-900312, Decision date: February 18, 2022]

Opposed mark

The opposed mark, consisting of flipped crocodile device and term “OCOSITE” (see below), was filed by a Japanese individual for use on clothing, footwear, headgear, sports shoes, and sportswear in class 25 on March 17, 2020.

T-shirts printing the opposed mark are promoted for sale with a catchphrase of “funny parody T-shirt.” As the term, “OCOSITE” means ‘wake me up, get me up’ in Japanese, the opposed mark gives rise to the meaning of a crocodile struggling to get up.

The opposed mark was registered on September 9, 2020, and published for opposition on September 29, 2020.

Opposition by Lacoste

It was anything but funny to the luxury sportswear brand, Lacoste.

Lacoste filed an opposition on November 27, 2020, within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date.

In the opposition, Lacoste claimed the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law on the grounds that a flipped crocodile device of the opposed mark closely resembles the world-famous Lacoste crocodile logo from its appearance.

Besides, the term “OCOSITE” is depicted in a similar font to “LACOSTE” and five letters “COS” and “TE” among seven letters are identical. Given the close resemblance between crocodile devices and the meaning of “OCOSITE”, relevant consumers at the sight of clothing and sportswear bearing the opposed mark would immediately conceive of the Lacoste crocodile struggling to get up and thus likely to confuse its souse with Lacoste.

JPO decision

The Opposition Board of JPO admitted a substantial degree of reputation and popularity of the Lacoste crocodile logo in relation to clothing, footwear, and sportswear.

The Board found a high degree of similarity between the flipped crocodile of the opposed mark and the Lacoste crocodile. Noticeably, the Board held respective element, namely, the crocodile device and the term “OCOSITE” of the opposed mark shall not be inseparably combined as a whole regardless of close adjacency.

In view of a high degree of reputation and originality of the opponent mark, and close association between the opponent business and the goods in question, the Board has reason to believe relevant consumers with an ordinary care would be likely to confuse the source of goods bearing the opposed mark with Lacoste or any business entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO sided with Lacoste and decided to cancel the opposed mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv).

JPO Found Lego 3D Figure Mark Lack Distinctiveness

Posted on

In a decision to the appeal against refusal to TM App no. 2017-138422 for the 3D shape of Lego figures in class 28, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Lego Juris A/S and found the 3D mark is inherently descriptive and has not acquired distinctiveness in relation to toys.

[Appeal case no. 2019-13906, Decision date: January 6, 2022]

LEGO 3D Figure mark

Toy giant, Lego Juris A/S applied to the JPO to register a 3D mark, showing the Lego figure seen from the front, side, back, top, and beneath (see below), for “games and playthings” and other goods in class 28 on October 20, 2017.

Article 3(1)(iii)

Trademark Examination Guideline (TEG) pertinent to Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law provides a mark shall be subject to the article if it solely consists of a shape that is recognized by consumers as a shape of goods or equivalent, namely “not go beyond the scope of the descriptive shape of goods”.

TEG stipulates criteria to assess the recognition.

  1. Where 3D shape is admittedly adopted for a purpose of enhancing function or the aesthetic appeal of goods, the shape is deemed to remain within the scope of descriptive shape of goods.
  2. Even though 3D shape has specific features by means of unique alteration or decoration, it is still considered not to go beyond the scope of descriptive shape of goods, where consumers assume such alteration or decoration attributable to enhancing function or the aesthetic appeal of goods.

The JPO examiner totally rejected the applied mark based on the article by finding the shape remains the scope of the descriptive shape of ‘human figure toys’ in class 28.

Lego Juris A/S filed an appeal against the rejection on October 18, 2019.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board affirmed the findings of the examiner and found the 3D mark does not go beyond the scope of the descriptive shape of the goods in question by stating that:

  1. Plenty of human shape figures have been promoted for sale by competitors in relevant business field.
  2. There is less necessity to adopt specific configuration in making a human shape figure provided that it has a basic skeleton of head, body, arms, and legs.
  3. The Board has a reason to believe 3D shape of the applied mark is adopted enabling (i) to wear several caps and hair wigs, (ii) to get hold of various tools at hand, (iii) to stand still in display and play.
  4. If so, relevant consumers would assume the whole shape and its unique decoration of Lego figure attributable to enhancing function or the aesthetic appeal of the toy.

Taking into consideration that the actual 3D shape of Lego figures are considerably different from the applied mark, and the word mark “LEGO” has been constantly used on catalogs, packages, and advertisement material adjacent to the applied mark, the Board has a reasonable doubt if the 3D shape per se has acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator of LEGO toys.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO Appeal Board decided to dismiss the appeal in contravention of Article 3(1)(iii).

DIOR Successful in Blocking Trademark “zovladior”

Posted on

On December 28, 2021, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Christian Dior in a trademark opposition against TM Reg no. 6227664 for the word mark “zovladior” in classes 3, 5, 9, and 10 by finding a likelihood of confusion with a world-renowned fashion brand “Dior”.
[Opposition case no. 2020-900133]

“zovladior”

The opposed mark, “zovladior” in standard character, was sought for registration by a Japanese company to be used on cosmetics, perfume, soaps, and detergents in class 3, pharmaceutical preparations, dietary supplements, dietary beverages and foods, beverages, and foods for babies in class 5, eyeglasses and goggles, sunglasses in class 9, massage apparatus, esthetic massage apparatus, electric massage apparatus for household purposes in class 10 on January 30, 2019.

The JPO examiner granted protection of the opposed mark on January 30, 2020, and published for opposition on March 10, 2020.

Opposition by Christian Dior

To contend registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Christian Dior Couture filed an opposition on May 8, 2020.

In the opposition, Christian Dior claimed the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii), (xi), (xv), (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law on the grounds that “zovladior” contains the mark “Dior”, an abbreviation of a world-renowned fashion brand “Christian Dior” and the opponent. If so, it is reasonable to consider the term “dior” as a prominent portion of the opposed mark that gives rise to the same sound and concept with the senior registered mark “Dior” owned by the opponent.

JPO decision

The Opposition Board of JPO admitted a substantial degree of reputation and popularity of “Dior” as an abbreviation of “Christian Dior” and the opponent in relation to fashion items including cosmetics, perfumes, watches, bags, women’s dresses, sunglasses.

On the grounds that 4 letters out of 9 are the same as the opponent’s mark “Dior”, the Board found there is a medium level of similarity between “zovladior” and “Dior.”

In view of a high degree of reputation and originality of the opponent mark, and close association between the opponent business and the goods in question, the Board has reason to believe relevant consumers with an ordinary care would conceive of the opponent at the sight of “zovladior” when used on goods in question.

If so, it is likely that the consumers would recognize a source of goods in question bearing the opposed mark from Christian Dior Couture or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO sided with the opponent and decided to cancel the opposed mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv).

Failed trademark opposition by HERMES against HAIRMES

Posted on

On December 1, 2021, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Hermes International against TM Reg no. 6275593 for the wordmark “HAIRMES” due to dissimilarity to and the unlikelihood of confusion with the famous fashion brand “HERMES”.
[Opposition case no. 2020-900266]

Opposed mark

Dog Diggin Designs, LLC applied a wordmark “HAIRMES” in standard character for use on beds for household pets; pillows for pets; pet cushions in class 20, and toys for pets in class 28 with the JPO on October 16, 2019.

The JPO examiner granted protection of the opposed mark on July 28, 2020, and published for opposition on August 18, 2020.

Apparently, Dog Diggin Designs promotes parody dog toys & dog beds, and other pet supplies.

https://www.dogdiggindesigns.com/

Opposition by Hermes

To oppose against registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Hermes International filed an opposition against the opposed mark on October 15, 2020.

Hermes argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Trademark Law because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of the HERMES brand in the fashion industry and a high degree of similarity between “HAIRMES” and “HERMES” likely to cause confusion among relevant consumers in Japan.

JPO decision


The JPO Opposition Board admitted “HERMES” has been widely recognized as a luxury fashion brand and source indicator of Hermes International.

In the meantime, the Board negated similarity between the marks by stating that:

From the appearance, the difference of “AI” and “E” in the middle of a respective word would suffice for relevant consumers to distinguish them.
Phonetically, “HERMES” is easily distinguishable from “HAIRMES” because of the difference in the first and second given both marks just consist of four sounds respectively.
Conceptually, the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. Meanwhile, “HERMES” has a meaning of a Greek god of commerce, eloquence, invention, travel, and theft who serves as herald and messenger of the other gods and ‘luxury fashion brand.’ If so, both marks give rise to a different impression in the mind of relevant consumers.

Based on a low degree of similarity between the marks, the Board denied a likelihood of confusion as well.

As to Hermes’ allegation that Dog Diggin Designs must have an unjustified intention to free-ride the reputation of HERMES by promoting pet supplies with a similar package design and color to Hermes, the Board found irrelevant to the case since the opposed mark does not contain such figurative element. Ironically, the opposed mark “HAIRMES” rather serves to prevent confusion even if used on similar package design and color, the Board held.

https://www.dogdiggindesigns.com/

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations and decided the opposed mark shall remain valid as the status quo.