タグ: similarity of mark

Champion loses trademark opposition over “C” logo

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC against TM Reg no. 6560200 for the C device mark due to dissimilarity to and the unlikelihood of confusion with the iconic “C” emblem of Champion.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900315, decided on May 22, 2023]

Opposed mark

DAIEI TRADING CO., LTD. a Japanese company, applied a device mark consisting of the “C” curved line and a heart & circle placed vertically inside of the line (see below) for use on apparel, footwear, sports shoes, and sportswear in class 25 with the JPO on December 8, 2021.

The JPO examiner did not raise any objection to the mark at all in the course of the substantive examination.

Accordingly, the mark was registered on May 23, 2022, and published for post-grant opposition on May 31, 2022.

Opposition by Champion

HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on August 2, 2022.

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 on the grounds that a high degree of similarity between the opposed mark and the iconic “C” emblem (see below) becoming famous as a source indicator of the Champion brand in connection with casual wear, sportswear, and other related goods would inevitably cause confusion among relevant consumers when the opposed mark is used on goods in question.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that the “C” emblem 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, both marks contain a curved line that looks like a “C” letter; however, the respective line looks totally different by means of a wide difference in line thickness. Besides, there is a clear difference between figurative elements depicted inside of the line (a heart & circle device placed vertically in the opposed mark, a thick vertical line in the cited mark). Therefore, the two marks are visually distinguishable.

Conceptually, the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. Meanwhile, the cited mark has the meaning of ‘famous brand of the opponent.’ If so, both marks are dissimilar in concept.

Based on the foregoing, the Board has a reason to believe that the opposed mark is dissimilar to the cited mark, even if they cannot be compared in terms of pronunciation.

In a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the Board found:

Even if the cited mark is widely recognized among consumers in Japan as a source indicator of the Champion’s business, given the low degree of similarity to the opposed mark, it would be unlikely that relevant traders and consumers at the sight of the opposed mark used on goods in question immediately associate or recall the cited mark or the opponent business.

If so, it is reasonable to consider that relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse the source of the goods bearing the opposed mark with Champion or another 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.

Unsuccessful Trademark Opposition over MONCLER Logo Outline

Posted on

On May 5, 2023, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition against the composite mark (TM Registration no. 6561093) filed by Moncler SpA, the Italian luxury fashion label, due to the dissimilarity to a device mark for the Moncler logo outline (Opposition no. 2022-900312).

Opposed mark

On December 4, 2021, COCOMi Corporation sought registration with the JPO of the composite mark consisting of the word “CONOMi” beneath the C logo and encircling outline (see below) for use on bags and pouches in Class 18 and apparel in Class 25.

The mark was registered on May 25, 2022, without receiving any refusal in the course of the substantive examination by the JPO. Thereafter, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on June 2, 2022.

Opposition by MONCLER

Italian luxury fashion brand MONCLER filed an opposition on July 28, 2022, contending that the opposed mark should be canceled for being in contravention with Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

MONCLER argued the opposed mark was similar to the earlier IR no. 991913 for the bell-shaped device mark representing the Moncler logo outline (see below) and was likely to cause confusion with MONCLER due to the resemblance between the opposed mark and Moncler’s famous mark, and the close relatedness of the goods in question with MONCLER’s business.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board considered the relevant consumers would not see the encircling outline as a prominent portion of the opposed mark by taking account of the coined word “COCOMi” and the entire visual configuration of the mark.

In so far as the encircling outline of the opposed mark perse would not play a role in identifying the source of goods in question, regardless of the resemblance between the encircling outline and the cited mark, the Board has a reason to believe both marks are dissimilar from visual, aural and conceptual points of view in its entirety.

Given the low level of similarity with the cited mark or the Moncler emblem, the Board had no reason to find that there would be a likelihood of confusion where the opposed mark is used on the goods in question, even though the Moncler emblem has acquired a certain degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers in Japan.

Moncler emblem

Consequently, the JPO did not side with MONCLER and decided to dismiss the opposition entirely.

Trademark dispute: iTunes vs HiTune

Posted on

On May 1, 2023, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Apple Inc. against TM Reg no. 6536066 for the wordmark “HiTune” by finding dissimilarity to and an unlikelihood of confusion with “iTunes”.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900242]

Opposed mark

UGREEN GROUP LIMITED, a Chinese company, filed the wordmark “HiTune” (see below) for use on computer peripheral devices, data processors, earphones, headphones, microphones, sound transmitting apparatus, and other goods in class 9 with the JPO on November 10, 2021.

The mark was registered on March 29, 2022, without receiving any refusal in the course of the substantive examination taken place by the JPO.

UGREEN has promoted wireless stereo earphones/earbuds bearing the mark.

Opposition by Apple Inc.

On June 6, 2022, Apple Inc. filed an opposition to “HiTune” and contended that the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registration nos. 4570713 “iTUNE”, 4610312 “ITUNES”, 5155781 “iTunes”, IR943547 “ITUNES” in class 9.

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

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entities’ well-known goods or services.

Apple Inc. argued that the mark “iTunes” has been famous as a source indicator of the opponent in relation to application software and multi-content distribution service. In view of the remarkable similarity between “HiTune” and “iTunes” by representing the second letter “i” in lower case and the third letter “T” in upper case, relevant consumers would associate the opposed mark with the opponent when used on goods of class 9 in question.

JPO decision

To my surprise, the JPO Opposition Board admitted a certain level of recognition of the mark “iTunes” as a source indicator of Apple Inc. in connection with application software enabling to download music or movies and to manage the contents among consumers of music distribution service, however, denied a substantial level of reputation and popularity of the opponent mark due to a lack of objective evidence produced to the Board.

In assessing the similarity of marks, the Board stated:

Differences such as the presence or absence of “H” at the beginning of the word, the difference between upper- and lower-case letters, and the presence or absence of “s” at the end of the word have a significant impact on the overall visual impression of both marks, which consist of relatively short letters. Therefore, the marks are clearly distinguishable from appearance.

There are distinctions between the sound “ha” and “a” at the beginning of a word, and the presence or absence of the sound “z” at the end of a word. These differences have a material effect on overall sounds given the relatively short sound structure. Therefore, there is less risk of mishearing each other when pronounced.

Since both marks do not give rise to any specific meanings, there is no room to cause confusion in concept.

If so, the Board has a reason to believe both marks are distinctively dissimilar.

Bearing in mind the Board finds that the opponent mark “iTunes” has not become famous among relevant consumers in Japan and has a low degree of similarity to the opposed mark “HiTune”, it is unlikely that the consumers confuse or misunderstand a source of goods in question bearing the opposed mark with Apple Inc. from the totality of the circumstances.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided the opposed mark shall not be canceled and dismissed the opposition entirely.

Jimmy Choo Unsuccessful in Trademark Opposition against “CHUU”

Posted on

On April 10, 2023, the JPO dismissed a trademark opposition against TM Reg no. 6523561 for the wordmark “chuu” contested by J. Choo Limited due to the dissimilarity of the mark and unlikelihood of confusion with “Jimmy Choo”.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900189]

Opposed mark “chuu”

PPB Studios Corporation Limited, a Korean fashion and beauty e-commerce company, sought registration of the wordmark “chuu” (see below) for use on apparel in class 25 and retail services for contact lenses, clothing, footwear, and bags in class 35 with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on March 8, 2021.

The JPO examiner did not raise an objection by citing earlier trademark registration for the stylized mark “CHOO” owned by J. Choo Limited and granted protection on February 28, 2022.

Opposition by Jimmy Choo

The luxury-footwear brand Jimmy Chou, a luxury footwear brand, filed the opposition on May 6, 2022, and contend that the opposed mark “chuu” shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Jimmy Choo argued the opposed mark is similar to earlier registration for his company-owned mark “CHOO” (see below) and is likely to cause confusion with Jimmy Choo because of a close resemblance between the opposed mark and his famous mark, and relatedness of the goods in question with Jimmy Choo’s business.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board questioned the famousness of the cited mark “CHOO” as a source indicator of the luxury footwear brand “Jimmy Choo” from the produced evidence and totality of the circumstances.

Next, the Board assessed the similarity of marks and found that there are distinctions between the opposed mark and the cited marks in terms of lower-case and upper-case letters, the thickness of the letters, the presence or absence of design, and the difference between the word “uu” and the word “OO” in the latter part of the respective mark. The visual impression that these differences give to the overall appearance of the two marks, both of which consist of four letters, is significantly different, and thus both marks are clearly distinguishable in appearance.

The opposed mark gives rise to the sound of “Chu”, while the cited is pronounced “Chu” or “Cho”. If so, both marks share the same pronunciation and are deemed aurally similar.

Both marks are not comparable conceptually because the respective mark does not give rise to any specific meaning at all.

Based on the foregoing, the Board held “Even if the opposed mark and the cited mark are not comparable in conception and share some similarities in sound, since they are significantly different in impression and clearly distinguishable in appearance, the Board has a reason to believe that the similarity in sound would not outweigh the visual difference. Taking all of the above into consideration as a whole, both marks are dissimilar and not likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the goods or services.

Given the cited mark has not acquired a certain degree of recognition as a source indicator of “Jimmy Choo” among relevant consumers in Japan, there is no reason to find a likelihood of confusion when the opposed mark is used on the goods in question.

Based on the above findings, the JPO Opposition Boards did not side with Jimmy Choo and decided the validity of the opposed mark as the status quo.

FURLA vs FURNA

Posted on

Italian heritage label Furla lost a trademark opposition in Japan against TM Reg no. 6501195 for the wordmark “FURNA” in class 25 as a result of the JPO’s decision finding no likelihood of confusion with “FURLA”.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900128, decided on April 6, 2023]

FURNA

The opposed mark, consisting of the wordmark “FURNA” in standard character, was filed for use on clothing, dresses, footwear, garters, waistbands, belts [clothing] and other goods in class 25 with the JPO by URBAN TEX Co., Ltd., a Japanese company on November 1, 2021.

The company opens an online shop for wedding dresses under the trade name “FURNA” on Rakuten online shopping platform.

In accordance with a request for accelerated examination from the company based on the actual use of the mark on any one of the designated goods, the JPO carried out a substantive examination and granted protection on January 14, 2022. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on January 27, 2022.

Opposition by FURLA

Italian luxury retailer FURLA S.P.A. filed an opposition on May 28, 2022, and claimed the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

FURLA argued a mere difference of “N” and “L” in the fourth letter of the respective word would be trivial and thus inadequate to find a low degree of similarity in appearance and sound. Given a close association between the goods in question and the opponent goods covered by earlier registrations for the FURLA marks that have acquired a high level of recognition among relevant consumers in Japan, the consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods bearing the opposed mark with Furla or mistakenly consider it from an entity systematically or economically connected with FURLA S.P.A.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted a high level of recognition of the mark “FURLA” in connection with bags among relevant consumers as a source indicator of the opponent.

In the meantime, the Board questioned if both marks are deemed similar in visual, aural, and conceptual points of view by stating:

Comparing the opposed mark and the opponent mark, “FURNA” and “FURLA” differ in appearance in the fourth letter of “N” and “L” but the difference in these letters in the short five-character composition has a substantial effect on the overall composition, and they are sufficiently distinguishable in appearance.

Pronunciation arising from “FURNA” and “FURLA” are different even when they are called in succession, and there is no risk of mishearing each other.

The opposed mark is conceptually distinguishable because it does not give rise to any specific meaning, whereas the opponent mark has been known as “Furla’s brand”.

Even if the “FURLA” mark is widely recognized among Japanese consumers as an indication of the opponent’s business, given the low degree of similarity between “FURNA” and “FURLA”, the Board has no reason to believe that the consumers having a glimpse of the opposed mark used on the goods in question would associate or recall the opponent mark.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the opposition entirely and decided that the opposed mark “FURNA” shall remain valid as the status quo.

L’Oréal loses trademark fight against “NOREAL”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by L’Oréal against TM Reg no. 6520304 for the wordmark “NOREAL” in class 3 due to dissimilarity to the L’OREAL mark and unlikelihood of causing confusion with L’Oréal.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900195, decided on April 5, 2023]

NOREAL

The opposed mark, consisting of the wordmark “NOREAL” in standard character, for use on cosmetics, soaps, shampoos, perfumes, fragrances, and other goods in class 3 was filed by a Japanese individual with the JPO on May 20, 2021.

The JPO examiner, without raising any objection, granted protection of the opposed mark on January 7, 2022. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on March 9, 2022.

Opposition by L’Oréal

Global cosmetic giant L’Oréal filed an opposition on May 10, 2022, and claimed the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

In the opposition brief, L’Oréal argued, given a close resemblance in appearance and sound between the world-famous mark “L’OREAL” and the opposed mark “NOREAL”, there is a high degree of similarity between the marks and thus relevant consumers of goods in question are likely to confuse a source of cosmetics bearing the opposed mark with L’Oréal or any entity economically or systematically connected with the opponent.

JPO decision

Astonishingly, the JPO Opposition Board found it unobvious from the produced evidence that the L’OREAL mark has been highly recognized as a source indicator of the opponent among a wide range of consumers.

On the assessment of the similarity of marks, the Opposition Board considered a difference between “N” and “L'” at the beginning of respective marks would play a significant role in distinguishing the appearance and sound of wordmark and have a substantial influence on the visual and aural impression of two marks, which consist of relatively few letters, as a whole. Therefore, the Board has a reason to believe that both marks are sufficiently distinguishable in appearance and sound. Since both marks do not give rise to any specific meaning, it is unable to assess the conceptual similarity of the two marks. Based on the above findings, the Board found both marks are dissimilar from visual, aural, and conceptual points of view.

Due to insufficient brand recognition of the L’OREAL mark and the low degree of similarity between the two marks, “NOREAL” and “L’OREAL”, the Board has a reason to believe relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse a source of cosmetics bearing the NOREAL mark with L’Oréal regardless of overlapping goods and consumers.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO did not side with L’Oréal and decided the validity of the opposed mark as the status quo.

Trademark case: Wilson vs Werwilson

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Wilson Sporting Goods Company against TM Reg no. 6520718 for the mark “Werwilson” with a device in class 25 by finding less likelihood of confusion with “Wilson”, the iconic American sporting goods brand when used on goods in class 25.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900124, decided on March 29, 2023]

Opposed mark

The opposed mark, consisting of two literal elements “Wer”, “wilson” and encircled “w” device placed in between them (see below), was sought registration by a Chinese company for use on apparel, footwear, and sports shoes in class 25 with the JPO on July 9, 2021.

The JPO granted protection of the opposed mark and registered on March 1, 2022, and published it for a post-grant opposition on March 9, 2022.

Opposition by Wilson

On March 28, 2022, Wilson Sporting Goods Company, originally known as the Ashland Manufacturing Company, created in 1913 in Chicago (US), a subsidiary of Amer Sports Corporation, opposed registration and claimed the opposed mark is confusingly similar to earlier registrations for their iconic mark “Wilson” (see below) and thus shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Wilson argued that visually the opposed mark can be conceived of as “We’re Wilson”. By virtue of a high level of brand recognition of “Wilson”, the opposed mark would give rise to a pronunciation and meaning of “Wilson” from its prominent portion. Given a close association of goods and consumers between the opposed mark and Wilson, relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods in question bearing the opposed mark with Wilson or another entity economically or systematically connected with the opponent.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted the famousness of the “Wilson” mark as a source indicator of the opponent in connection with tennis and sporting goods among relevant consumers in Japan.

However, the Board found that the opposed mark would not be conceived of as “We’re Wilson” from its configuration. Besides, the opposed mark does not give rise to the pronunciation and meaning of “Wilson” as a whole or in part.

If so, both marks are dissimilar from visual, phonetical, and conceptual points of view.

In view of the low degree of similarity of the marks, the Board has a reason to believe that relevant consumers with ordinary care are unlikely to confuse the source of goods in question using the opposed mark with Wilson.

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

Dolce & Gabbana Unsuccessful in Blocking Trademark “Ms. dolce”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by the Italian luxury firm, Dolce & Gabbana against trademark registration no. 6506687 for the word mark “Ms. dolce” in class 25 by finding a less likelihood of confusion with “Dolce & Gabbana.”

[Opposition case no. 2022-900141, decided on March 23, 2023]

“Ms. dolce”

The opposed mark, consisting of the word “Ms. dolce”, was filed by a Japanese company, BEANS Co., Ltd. for use on footwear in class 25 with the JPO on May 31, 2021 (TM Application no. 2021-066636).

The company promotes women’s pumps bearing the mark “Ms. Dolce” via the Internet.

A capture from Rakuten “AmiAmi” online shop

The JPO admitted registration on January 31, 2022, and published it for post-grant opposition on February 8, 2022.

Opposition by Dolce & Gabbana

Dolce & Gabbana filed an opposition on April 6, 2022, and argued the opposed mark “Ms. dolce” shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law since relevant consumes are likely to confuse the source of footwear bearing the opposed mark with Dolce & Gabbana because of a close resemblance between “Ms. dolce” and the mark “Dolce” that has become famous per se as a source indicator of the opponent and been known for the abbreviation of Domenico Dolce, as an Italian fashion designer and a co-founder of Dolce & Gabbana.

Article 4(1)(xv) is a provision to prohibit registration of a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.

Article 4(1)(viii) prohibits registration of trademarks that contain the representation or name of any person, famous pseudonym, professional name, or pen name of another person, or famous abbreviation thereof.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board did not admit the term “Dolce” per se has become famous as a source indicator of Dolce & Gabbana by finding that given the famous brand “Dolce & Gabbana” has been represented adjacent to the term “Dolce” on their goods, the Board has a reasonable doubt if the term has acquired a certain degree of reputation as a source indicator of the opponent from the produced evidence. Besides, the Board questioned whether “Dolce” has been known as an abbreviation of “Dolce & Gabbana” due to the same reason.

The Board assessed both marks have a low degree of similarity from visual, phonetical, and conceptual points of view by stating:

  1. Relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse the marks in appearance because of the distinction of the letters and configuration that constitute respective marks.
  2. The consumers are clearly able to distinguish two sounds with or without “Ms.”
  3. The opposed mark gives rise to a meaning of a woman named “dolce”. Meanwhile, the cited mark has a meaning of ‘sweet; dessert’ in the Italian language.

If so, even though footwear is closely associated with the opponent business, the Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers would confuse a source of footwear bearing the opposed mark with Dolce & Gabbana by taking into consideration a low degree of similarity of the marks and insufficient evidence to bolster famousness of the cited mark “Dolce”.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the opposed mark shall not be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii) and (xv).

VISA lost in a bid to oppose AIR VISA

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition claimed by Visa International Service Association (VISA) against TM Reg no. 6512071 for the wordmark “AIRVISA” due to an unlikelihood of confusion with “VISA” in connection with goods and services of classes 9, 35, 39, and 42.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900159, decided on March 9, 2023]

AIR VISA

SmartHR, Inc. filed the wordmark “AIRVISA” in standard character for use on various goods and services in classes 9, 35, 39, and 42, inter alia, computer application software, personal management, application service of working visa and residence status, and SaaS with the JPO on July 29, 2021.

AIRVISA Inc., a subsidiary of SmartHR, provides services for Japanese companies to support online working visa applications and residence status management for their foreign workers.

The JPO granted protection of the AIR VISA mark on February 1, 2022, and subsequently, the mark was published for opposition on February 21, 2022.

Opposition by VISA

Visa International Service Association (VISA) filed an opposition on April 21, 2022, before the lapse of a two-month opposition period, and contended that the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entities’ well-known goods or services.

VISA argued relevant consumers would conceive of VISA’s famous service mark “VISA” at the sight of the opposed mark, consisting of “AIR” and “VISA” when used on its designated goods and services because of a remarkable degree of the reputation of the “VISA” mark and business circumstances that credit card companies provide application program for online payment service at present

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted the famousness of the “VISA” mark in relation to the service of credit card services and electronic credit card transaction processing as a source indicator of the opponent based on substantial use since 1958 and a top market share of over 50% in Japan.

In the meantime, the Board questioned whether the “VISA” mark has become famous as a source indicator in connection with computer programs for online payment services from the produced evidence.

The Board considered the opposed mark “AIR VISA” shall be assessed in its entirety because of a tight combination of two words that is familiar to relevant consumers in Japan respectively. If so, both marks are dissimilar in the presence and absence of the term “AIR” from visual, phonetical, and conceptual points of view.

Bearing in mind that the term “VISA” is not a coined word, having its original meaning as an official mark, usually made in a passport, that allows one to enter or leave a particular country, the Board has a reason to believe that relevant consumers are unlikely to associate the goods and services in question bearing the opposed mark with VISA.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the opposed mark shall not be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law and dismissed the entire allegations by VISA.

Hermes Wins Birkin & Kelly Bag’s 3D Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

Posted on

On March 9, 2023, the Tokyo District Court awarded HERMES INTERNATIONAL JPY5,640,112 for infringement of its trademark right pertinent to the 3D shape of the Birkin bag and Kelly bag.

[Judicial case no. Tokyo District Court – Reiwa3(wa)22287]

3D mark of Hermès Birkin and Kelly Bag

HERMES INTERNATIONAL, a French luxury fashion house, has owned Japanese trademark registration no. 5438059 for the 3D shape of the “Birkin” bag and no. 5438058 for the “Kelly” bag in connection with handbags (class 25) since 2011 by successfully demonstrating acquired secondary meaning as a specific source indicator of Hermès’ luxury bags.

Birkin and Kelly Bag Imitations

Hermes sued NAO INTERNATIONAL Co., Ltd. at the Tokyo District Court for violating its trademark right and the unfair competition prevention law by allegedly selling 214 Birkin look-alike bags and 184 Kelly look-alike bags in Japan with a price tag of JPY2,270 (approx. USD20) at their brick-and-mortal shops and online shop from December 20, 2019, to February 13, 2021.

Court decision

The Tokyo District Court found that the defendant’s bags respectively resemble 3D marks representing Hermès Birkin and Kelly Bag in an appearance on the ground that the defendant’s bags contain a basic and unique configuration enabling to distinguish Hermès Birkin and Kelly Bag from others. A difference in details is trivial and would not give rise to a distinctive impression in the mind of consumers.

Taking into consideration the fact that both bags are promoted for sale at the department store, the court has a reason to believe relevant consumers are likely to confuse the source of the defendant’s bags with Hermes.

Even though there is a severe price gap between the Hermes bag and the defendant bag, bearing in mind that authentic second-hand Hermès handbags are sold relatively at low prices, such a price gap would be anything but sufficient to negate the likelihood of confusion.

The court measured damages to recover (i) the defendant’s actual profits of infringing bags (JPY5,150,140) by reducing 20% (not attributable to goodwill on Hermès bags) for JPY4,120,112, (ii) “mental suffering” caused by an infringement for JPY1,000,000, and (iii) reasonable attorney fee for JPY520,000.

To read a full text of the Tokyo District Court decision (Japanese only), click here.