タグ: refusal appeal

Does Pictogram Play a Role in Identifying Commercial Origin?

Posted on

While the examiner found a lack of inherent distinctiveness in the pictogram depicting a claw crane game machine and a player in relation to amusement arcade services, the JPO Appeal Board reversed the rejection, finding that the mark possesses a distinctive character capable of identifying commercial origin.
[Appeal Case No. 2025-11695, decided on June 4, 2026]

The Disputed Mark

TAITO Corporation, a Japanese video game and entertainment company, filed a trademark application for a device mark representing a claw crane game machine and a player (see below) for use in connection with amusement arcade services in Class 41 on May 1, 2024. [TM App. No. 2024-046625]

The mark is currently used at four “TAITO Station” game centers in Japan (located in Tokyo, Hokkaido, and Nagoya).

https://www.taito.co.jp/

JPO Examiner’s Rejection

On April 21, 2025, the JPO examiner issued a decision to reject the mark under Article 3(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 3(1)(vi) is a catch-all provision that prohibits the registration of 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.

In the refusal, the examiner determined that:

  • The applied-for mark would be easily recognized as a simplified, abstract figure of a person playing on a gaming machine.
  • Relevant traders and consumers in the amusement arcade service industry would perceive it merely as a “pictogram” indicating amusement/gaming services, rather than a specific commercial origin.

JPO Appeal Board Decision

However, the Appeal Board reversed the examiner’s decision based on the following crucial points:

1. Lack of Industry-Wide Descriptive Use:

While the disputed mark appears to depict a claw crane game machine and a player, it is not a realistic depiction. More importantly, the Board’s ex officio investigation found no evidence that the relevant industry uses this specific mark—or any similar abstract figures of individuals operating machinery—as a standard descriptive tool to indicate the provision of such services.

2. No Evidentiary Basis for Lack of Distinctiveness:

There were no surrounding circumstances or market evidence to suggest that relevant traders and consumers would fail to recognize the disputed mark as a source identifier.

Based on the above findings, the JPO Appeal Board observed that the disputed mark does not solely indicate a “venue to play arcade games.” Instead, it is fully capable of functioning as a distinctive source identifier.

Accordingly, the Board held that the disputed mark does not fall under Article 3(1)(vi) and revoked the examiner’s refusal.

JPO Finds Game Software Similar to Computers and Display Monitors for Trademark Purposes

Posted on

In a recent appeal decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) upheld the examiner’s refusal to TM App no. 2024-134546 for wordmark “SHINOBI” after finding the designated game software similar to the cited electronic devices and display monitors.
[Appeal case no. 2025-9765, decided on May 22, 2026]

SHINOBI by SEGA

Sega Corporation, a Japanese video game company, filed an application to register the word mark “SHINOBI” in standard characters covering “game programs for mobile phones or computers; computer game software; virtual reality game software” in class 9 with the JPO on December 13, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-134546].

https://shinobi-art-of-vengeance.sega.jp/

JPO Examination

On March 24, 2025, the examiner rejected the mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing IR no. 1659265 for word mark “SHINOBI” in relation to the goods of “Electronic devices for displaying, editing, recording, encoding, storing, transferring, transmitting or reproducing data, electronic data, video and audio excluding electronic devices for playing video games; display monitors; apparatus for the reproduction of sound or images” in class 9.

The examiner considered the goods similar despite the applicant’s contention that game software and electronic devices are fundamentally different products produced and sold by different industries.

To contest, SEGA filed an appeal against the rejection on June 24, 2025, and challenging the examiner’s finding of similarity between the goods.

Appeal Board decision

The Appeal Board reiterated the long-established principle that the similarity of goods does not depend on whether consumers would confuse the goods themselves.

Instead, the relevant question is whether the use of identical or similar trademarks on those goods would lead consumers to believe that the goods originate from the same commercial source.

In making that assessment, the JPO considered factors such as:

• production channels;
• sales channels;
• quality and characteristics;
• intended purpose;
• consumer groups; and
• the relationship between finished products and components.

Hardware and software as closely related goods

The Appeal Board first observed that the cited goods essentially covered general-purpose electronic devices such as computers and smartphones, as well as display monitors.

Game software, by its nature, is executed on computers, smartphones, and similar electronic devices. Display monitors are likewise commonly used when operating computer games.

Accordingly, the JPO found that the cited electronic devices and monitors are products used to run or utilize the applicant’s game software, creating a close commercial relationship between the goods.

Production and sales channels

The applicant argued that game software is typically produced by game developers, whereas computers and monitors are manufactured by electronics companies.

However, the JPO relied on marketplace evidence showing that certain businesses manufacture and offer both gaming software and computer-related hardware products.

The Appeal Board therefore concluded that the production sources may overlap.

The same reasoning was applied to sales channels.

According to the JPO, game software, computers, and display monitors are frequently sold through the same retail outlets, including large electronics stores. In many cases, the products are displayed in close proximity and may even be offered by the same supplier.

Purpose and consumers

The Board also emphasized that gaming monitors are widely marketed and sold specifically for gaming purposes.

Moreover, although the cited specification expressly excluded dedicated video game consoles, it still encompassed general-purpose computers and smartphones capable of running games.

As a result, both categories of goods may, in certain circumstances, share the same gaming-related purpose.

The Board further noted that the relevant consumers substantially overlap, since both goods target ordinary consumers who use computers and similar electronic devices.

Software and hardware: a relationship close to components and finished products

Notably, the Board also addressed the relationship between software and hardware.

While acknowledging that software and hardware are not literally a finished product and its component, the JPO nevertheless found them to be closely comparable to such a relationship.

Game software is installed on electronic devices and used in conjunction with monitors. In practice, the products function together as part of a single user experience.

This functional interdependence weighed heavily in favor of finding similarity.

Conclusion

Taking all relevant factors into account, the Appeal Board concluded that the designated game software and the cited electronic devices and display monitors constitute similar goods. The examiner therefore did not err in refusing the application under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Act.

Two words arranged in two lines with different fonts are considered in their entirety, the JPO says

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s rejection against IR no. 1653013 for a stylized wordmark consisting of “Cool Water” and “REBORN” arranged in two lines due to a similarity to the earlier mark “Re:born” and found both marks dissimilar.
[Appeal case no. 2025-650030, decided on February 18, 2026]

IR no. 1653013

Zino Davidoff SA, a Swiss Company, filed trademark application for a stylized word mark consisting of  “Cool Water” and “REBORN” arranged in two lines (see below) for use on  Perfumery products; perfumes and eaux de toilette; shower gels; skin lotions for cosmetic use; after-shave preparations; deodorants and antiperspirants for personal use in Class 3 with the JPO via the Madrid Protocol on November 13, 2023.

The applicant promotes Eau de Toilette bearing the mark.

https://www.zinodavidoff.com/

Earlier marks

On October 21, 2024, the JPO examiner decided the mark not eligible for registration under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for the word mark “Re:born” or its transliteration written in Japanese katakana characters in Class 3.

On April 30, 2025, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection. In the appeal, the applicant argued the dissimilarity of the marks.

JPO Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board found that the mark should be assessed in its entirety. It is not permissible to dissect the mark into individual parts and make a comparison with the cited marks by stating that:

  • Despite the evident divergence in font and size, the terms “Cool Water” and “REBORN”, arranged in two lines, appear to be positioned in a close and unified manner.
  • The sound “Cool water reborn” can be articulated as a single, uninterrupted phrase.
  • Conceptually, there is no reason for relevant consumers to take more note of the literal element “REBORN,” since “Cool Water” also has a clear meaning.
  • Therefore, the consumers are unlikely to see the term “REBORN” dominant in the mark. The Board found no evidence to support that the term plays a significant role in identifying the source of goods in question by taking into consideration actual trade practice in the relevant industry.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the examiner erred in finding similarity of the marks and thus erroneously applied Article 4(1)(xi).

OneClick is not descriptive in relation to computer software, JPO says

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s rejection of TM App no. 2024-64572 for the wordmark “OneClick” in Class 9 by finding that the term can play a role in identifying a source of the goods in question.
[Appeal case no. 2025-13091, decided on January 22, 2026]

OneClick

Osstem Implant Co., Ltd., a Korean dental implant company, filed a trademark application for the wordmark “OneClick” in standard character for use on computer software for management of medical devices or the database in Class 9 with the JPO on June 14, 2024.

Rejection by examiner

The JPO examiner notified a ground for refusal laid down in Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

In the refusal decision, the examiner noted that the term “OneClick” has the meaning of “pressing a computer-mouse button to operate a computer.” Computer software operable with a single click has been distributed in relevant industries.

Therefore, the consumers who encounter the term when used on the goods at issue, will just recognize it as a functional indication of the goods.

The applicant argued that the mark is mainly intended for use on computer software in highly specialized business fields such as medical institutions and insurance claims processing, and that its users are limited to medical professionals and specialized staff. Consequently, the mark does not directly indicate the feature or quality of the goods “operable with a single click.”

The examiner did not find the arguments persuasive based on the fact that the applicant’s identified goods are not limited to medical use and include the goods used in a wide range of business fields, such as “computer software for databases” and “computer programs for image processing.”

On August 20, 2025, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection and disputed the inherent distinctiveness of the mark.

Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board decided to revoke the examiner’s rejection laid down in Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law by stating that:

Even though the term “OneClick” has a meaning of “a single click of the button on a computer mouse,” it is doubtful whether relevant consumers would immediately recognize it as an indication of the specific function or quality of the goods in question.

 Ex officio investigation did not reveal any evidence to suggest that the term “OneClick” or its equivalent is actually and commonly used to indicate the function or quality of goods in the relevant business field. Besides, the Board could not find circumstances to negate the distinctiveness of the mark as a source indicator when used on, or in connection with goods in question.

Based on the foregoing, it has reason to believe that the mark “OneClick” can play a role in identifying the source of the goods in question, and thus it will not be a mark consisting solely of a term indicating the quality of the identified goods in a manner commonly used.

SERAPIAN Successful in Registering iconic MOSAICO braided pattern as trademark

Posted on

The Italian-based fashion house Stefano Serapian S.r.l. was successful in an appeal to overturn the examiner’s rejection of TM App no. 2022-131488 for the Serapian’s signature “Mosaico” leather pattern in Class 18.
[Appeal case no. 2023-16337, decided on December 17, 2025]

SERAPIAN MOSAICO

Stefano Serapian S.r.l. filed a trademark application for a braided pattern (see below) for use on bags, suitcases, tote bags, backpacks, key cases, porches, wallets, coin cases, and handbags in Class 18 with the JPO on November 17, 2022 [TM App no. 2022-131488].

The Serapian Mosaico pattern is known for its iconic hand-weaving technique, which dates back to 1947 and serves as an emblem of the Italian luxury brand, Serapian.

https://www.serapian.com/

JPO Examination

On June 26, 2023, the examiner rejected the mark based on Article 3(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law by finding that:

The applied-for mark represents a continuous and repetitive geometric pattern consisting of a white square with a vertical line in the middle and a black square in a diagonal position. As a whole, it will be perceived merely as a decorative background design. Besides, there is no distinctive element that identifies the source of the goods in question. Consequently, consumers are unable to recognize it as a source indicator due to its lack of inherent distinctiveness.

Serapian filed an appeal against the rejection on September 27, 2023, to dispute the inherent distinctiveness of the mark based on substantial use and advertising of the Mosaico collection in Japan since 2014.

JPO Appeal Board Decision

The JPO Appeal Board noted the following facts.

  • Founded in 1928, the applicant is known for its line of bags favored by the late British actress Audrey Hepburn. The applicant’s bags, which depict the applied-for mark and were designed in 1947, have been sold nationwide in Japan for over 10 years and have been distributed in Japan since 2014.
  • Major fashion magazines and online articles have featured the bags and their iconic “MOSAICO” pattern design.
  • The bags are also sold in major department stores and online malls. Despite being expensive and high-end goods, annual sales exceeded JPY 50 million in 2023 and JPY 9 million in 2024.
  • A discretionary survey by the Board did not reveal the actual use of a similar pattern by others.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found that relevant consumers and traders can distinguish the applicant’s goods from others based solely on the Mosaico pattern.

Therefore, since the applied-for mark is not subject to Article 3(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law, the Board overturned the examiner’s rejection.

JPO decision: Gem Queen is Not Confusable with QUEEN for gems

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) disaffirmed the examiner’s rejection to TM App no. 2024-4744 of wordmark “Gem Queen” for use on gems, jewelry, personal ornaments in Class 14 by finding dissimilarity to earlier trademark registration of wordmark “QUEEN” on the same goods.
[Appeal case no.2024-16517, decided on September 4, 2025]

Gem Queen

A Japanese individual filed a trademark application with the JPO for wordmark “Gem Queen” in standard character by designating ‘Precious metals; Unwrought and semi-wrought precious stones and their imitations; Key rings; Jewelry boxes; Trophies [prize cups] of precious metal; Commemorative shields of precious metal; Personal ornaments [jewelry]; Shoe ornaments of precious metal; Clocks and watches’ in Class 14 on Jan 19, 2024. [TM App no. 2024-4744]

On March 1, 2024, the applicant requested the JPO to accelerate examination procedure by demonstrating actual use of the applied-for mark on any of the designated goods.

QUEEN

The JPO examiner rejected the mark due to a conflict with earlier TM Reg no. 3332881 of wordmark “QUEEN” in Class 14 based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

In her refusal decision, the examiner stated that the element “Gem” in the mark merely corresponds to a generic term of the designated goods and therefore lacks, or possesses only very weak, distinctiveness as a source indicator. Accordingly, the “Queen” element is dominant in the mark as an indication of the origin. Therefore, in assessing the similarity between “Gem Queen” and “QUEEN”, it is permissible to focus the comparison on the “Queen” element. Consequently, the applied-for mark gives rise to the same pronunciation and concept with the cited mark.

On October 16, 2024, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection and argued dissimilarity of the marks.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board observed that the examiner erred in applying Article 4(1)(xi) by incorrectly finding the term “Queen” as a dominant element of the applied-for mark.

The Board noted that the constituent characters are presented in the same font, size, and spacing, and appear well-balanced and unified. The pronunciation “Gem Queen” can also be articulated smoothly in a single breath. Furthermore, the applied-for mark as a whole evokes the concept of a “queen of gems” or “jewel queen.” Additionally, no specific circumstances have been identified in the relevant industry dealing with the designated goods, such as “Gem” being widely used to indicate the quality (e.g., “jewel”) of the goods, or brand names in the form of “Gem ○○” being customarily abbreviated in trade by omitting “Gem” and using only the “○○” portion. Therefore, when the mark is presented as a whole, it is difficult to conclude that the element “Gem” would be disregarded, and the mark would be traded based on “Queen” alone. Rather, it is reasonable to consider the applied-for mark as an inseparable whole.

Based on the foregoing, the Board held that it is not permissible to separate the “Queen” portion from the applied-for mark and determine the similarity between the applied-for mark and the cited mark on that basis. In this respect, the examiner’s rejection should be overturned.

Porsche Successful in Registration of Composite Mark “PCA”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s rejection of TM App no. 2023-61383 for composite mark “PCA” filed by Porshe Japan on account of dissimilarity to earlier trademark registrations for word mark “PCA”.
[Appeal case no. 2024-3079, decided on February 17, 2025]

PREMIUM CHARGING ALLIANCE “PCA”

Porsche Japan K.K., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Porsche AG as an official distributor of Porsche vehicles in Japan, filed trademark application for composite mark “PCA” as shown below with the JPO for use on ‘compute programs’ in class 9 and ‘computer software design; computer programing; maintenance of computer software; providing computer programs on data networks’ in class 42 on June 5, 2023.

Porsche Japan has launched a project to expand the network of 150kW fast charging stations across Japan by forming an alliance with Audi in April 2022. The applied mark is used to indicate the project.

JPO examination

On November 21, 2023, the JPO examiner rejected the applied mark due to a conflict with earlier trademark registration nos. 1738222, 5762134 and 5764544 for word mark “PCA” in class 9 and 42 owned by PCA Corporation based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

In the refusal decision, the examiner stated that the element “PCA” in the upper line of the applied mark is dominant in the overall visual impression. If so, the applied mark is confusingly similar to the cited marks, even though there is a difference in appearance, since both marks give rise to the same sound.

Porsche Japan filed an appeal against the rejection on February 21, 2024, requesting that the decision be set aside.

Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board found the applied mark should not be dissected into individual parts from its overall configuration. Relevant consumers would recognize the term “PCA” in the upper line as an abbreviation of the term “PREMIUM CHARGING ALLIANCE” in the lower line. Both the term “PCA” and “PREMIUM CHARGING ALLIANCE” would not give rise to any specific meaning.

In assessing similarity of the marks, the Board held there is no clear distinction in appearance between the marks as a whole. Phonetically, the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited marks on account of the sound arising from the term “PREMIUM CHARGING ALLIANCE”. The conceptual aspect does not have impact on the assessment of similarity, since both marks are meaningless.

Based on the above findings, the Board found the examiner erroneously applied Article 4(1)(xi) and declared registration of the applied mark due to dissimilarity to the earlier mark “PCA”.

“Uber Finish” Causes No likelihood of confusion with “Uber”?

Posted on

In an appeal trial against the examiner’s refusal to TM App no. 2023-19561 for word mark “Uber Finish”, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to reverse the refusal by finding unlikelihood of confusion with trademark “Uber”.
[Appeal case no. 2024-4656, decided on September 3, 2024]

Uber Finish

A Japanese individual filed a trademark application for wordmark “Uber Finish” in standard character for use on adult dating services and others of class 45 in the field of adult entertainment business with the JPO on February 24, 2023.

Uber

On January 4, 2024, the JPO examiner rejected the mark on following grounds.

Article 4(1)(viii)

The examiner pointed out that the applied mark “Uber Finish” contains the term “Uber” that is identical with a famous abbreviation of the global company Uber Technologies Inc.
Provided that the applicant has not obtained an approval to register the applied mark in Japan from the company, it is not registrable under Article 4(1)(viii) of the Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Unquestionably, the term “Uber” is identical with a famous mark “Uber” that has been used by the global company Uber Technologies Inc. on ride-sharing services and food delivery services prior to the filing of the applied mark. Accordingly, it is not registrable under Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law because relevant consumers of the service in question are likely to confusion a source of the services bearing the applied mark “Uber Finish” with Uber Technologies or other business entity systematically or economically connected with Uber.

The applicant filed an appeal against the refusal on March 18, 2024 and argued registrability of the applied mark.

JPO decision

To my surprise, the JPO Appeal Board denied famousness of the mark “Uber” as an abbreviation of Uber Technologies Inc., even though they admitted the company has operated ride-hailing and food delivery services in the name of “Uber Taxi” and “Uber Eats”.

Based on the above finding, the Board found the applied mark does not contain a famous abbreviation of the company name, Uber Technologies Inc. Therefore, the examiner erroneously applied Article 4(1)(viii) to the case.

The Board found the mark “Uber Finish” and “Uber” dissimilar by stating that:

“From appearance, the marks share the word “Uber” at the beginning of the word, but the difference in the word “Finish” that follows makes them different words as a whole, and therefore, it is easy to distinguish them.
Although the four sounds of “Uber” at the beginning of the word may be common, the difference in the sound of “Finish” at the end of the word makes the overall tone and impression different, so it is easy to distinguish two marks.
A conceptual comparison is neutral as neither “Uber Finish” not “Uber” have any clear meaning.
Taking a global account of visual and aural distinctions, average consumers would consider them as different trademarks to indicate a different source respectively.”

Besides, the business managed by Under Technologies Inc. is remotely associated with the services in question, namely, adult entertainment services. If so, relevant consumers with an ordinary care are unlikely to confuse a source of services bearing the applied mark with Uber Technologies Inc. In this respect, the examiner made an error in applying Article 4(1)(xv).

Consequently, the Board decided to overturn the examiner’s refusal and grant 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.

JPO decision: “PENINSULA HILLS” unlikely to cause confusion with “The Peninsula”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s refusal and granted registration of the word mark “PENINSULA HILLS” written in Japanese Katakana characters in Classes 36 and 43, finding no likelihood of confusion with a world-renowned hotel “The Peninsula”.
[Appeal case no. 2023-4720, decided on July 25, 2024]

PENINSULA HILLS

CF-1 Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application with the JPO on January 7, 2022 for the word mark “PENINSULA HILLS” written in Japanese Katakana characters (see below) for use in, among other things, real estate services in Class 36 and hotel and restaurant services in Class 43 (TM App No. 2022-1353).

The Peninsula

The JPO examiner decided to reject the applied mark “PENINSULA HILLS” by finding a likelihood of confusion with a world-renowned hotel “The Peninsula” because the mark contains the term “PENINSULA”, which is highly recognized by consumers as an abbreviation of the luxury hotel, based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law on December 6, 2022.

To contest the rejection, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection with the JPO on March 3, 2023.

JPO Appeal Board decision

To my surprise, the JPO Appeal Board questioned a high degree of recognition of the hotel “The Peninsula” by stating that:

“The Peninsula Tokyo” is the only hotel commercially operated by The Hongkong Shanghai Hotels, Limited in Japan. If so, the number of users is quite limited. Even if there are hotels with the name “The Peninsula” operated by the company in foreign countries and then Japanese travelers may stay the hotels, it is insufficient to find a high recognition of the hotel to average consumers since there is no objective data regarding the number of users, its sales, and the ratio of Japanese users and sales.

Therefore, the Board has no reason to believe that the term “PENINSULA” is widely recognized by consumers in Japan as an abbreviation for the hotels managed by the company.

In a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the Board found the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited mark “The Peninsula”.

The applied mark and the cited mark differ significantly in appearance due to the difference in the number of letters and the presence of the word “HILLS”. Furthermore, the difference in the number of syllables and the presence of the sound “HILLS” make the pronunciations easily distinguishable. Therefore, the relevant consumers and traders will be able to distinguish between the two marks are will consider them to be dissimilar because of the clear difference in the overall impression.

Given no high recognition of the hotel “The Peninsula” and low degree of similarity to the applied mark, the Board finds no reason to believe the applied mark may cause confusion with the cited mark when used in relation to the services in question.

In view of the foregoing, the Board held that the examiner had errored in applying Article 4(1)(xv), and decided to grant protection to the applied mark.