The Japan Patent Office (JPO) affirmed the examiner’s rejection to TM App no. 2022-131131 for wordmark “WEBmetaverse” by finding a lack of inherent distinctiveness in relation to the designated goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42.
[Appeal case no. 2024-1154, decided on February 13, 2025]
WEBmetaverse
COLOPL, Inc. filed a trademark application for mark “WEBmetavese” in standard character with the JPO on November 16, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-131131).
The mark covers various goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42 relating to computer programs, virtual reality, SaaS, and others.
The applied mark has been in use on their platform for users to experience the metaverse.
On October 24, 2023, the JPO examiner rejected the mark based on Article 3(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law by finding that:
“WEB” is an abbreviation of World Wide Web. “metaverse” means a virtual-reality space in which users can interact with a computer-generated environment and other users. Therefore, the applied mark is recognized just to indicate ‘a virtual-reality space provided on internet’ as a whole. If so, the relevant consumers will not be able to identify a specific source of the goods and services from the mark applied for.
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.
The applicant filed an appeal against the examiner’s refusal on January 23, 2024, contesting the inherent distinctiveness of the mark “WEBmetaverse” based on the fact that the mark applied for was not actually used by any entity other than the applicant.
JPO decision
The JPO Appeal Board stated that:
Recently, “Metaverse” has been at the center of attention in the public. There is a circumstance that the metaverse accessible from a web browser without specific devices or applications is referred to as a “Web-type Metaverse”.
Therefore, the mark applied for just gives rise to a meaning of “Metaverse using the Web” as a whole. If so, relevant consumers at the sight of the mark used on the goods and services in question would simply recognize it to indicate the purpose or function of the goods and services for “Metaverse using the Web”. It is reasonable to say that the mark applied for cannot play a role in distinguishing goods and services with competitors.
A fact that plenty of mark containing the term “Metaverse” have been registered would not be binding and relevant because these registrations are different from the mark applied for.
Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law should be applied on a case-by-case basis, with due consideration given to the configuration of the mark as well as the common practices of transactions at the time of examination or trial decision.
Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to dismiss an appeal entirely and found “WEBmetaverse” unregistrable as a trademark.