タグ: similarity of mark

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.

Harvey Ball wins trademark opposition over the double-eyed smiley face

Posted on

In a recent administrative decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Harvey Ball Smile Limited in opposition against TM Reg no. 6524017 due to a conflict with the Double-Eyed Smiley Face mark.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900202 decided on March 3, 2023]

Opposed mark

Capital Co., Ltd. filed a device mark (see below) for use on various goods including personal ornament, bags, pouches, and clothing in classes 14, 16, 18, and 25 with the JPO on September 30, 2021.

Apparently, the applicant promotes T-shirts, shoes, and bags bearing the opposed mark via the internet.

A screen capture of https://www.kapital-webshop.jp/category/MENSALL/EK1426.html

The JPO granted protection of the mark on March 7, 2022, and published it for opposition on March 15, 2022.

Opposition by Harvey Ball Smile Limited

Harvey Ball Limited filed an opposition against May 16, 2022, and claimed cancellation of the opposed mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier TM Reg nos. 6479744, 6504979, 6504980, 6504981, 6504982, and 6504983 for the Double-eyed Smiley Face mark (see below).

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 argued against the opposition and alleged relevant consumers can distinguish two marks because of distinctive visual impressions arising from a different shape of the mouth.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found the opposed mark is similar to the Double-eyed Smiley Face mark by stating that:

“Comparing the opposed mark and the citations, from appearance, both marks represent a face in yellow with two sets of eyes. Although there are differences in details (such as the size of the dots, the thickness of the arc lines, the degree of opening, and the presence or absence of single lines at both ends of the arc lines) and facial expressions, these differences have less impact on the overall impression. If so, both marks have similar visual impressions as a whole.

Besides, since respective mark does not give rise to any specific sound and meaning, they are not comparable from phonetical and conceptual points of view.

Therefore, the Board has a reason to believe that both marks are likely to cause confusion when used on the personal ornament, bags, and pouches, clothing in classes 14, 18, and 25 that are deemed similar to the goods designated under the citations.”

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to partially cancel the opposed mark in relation to personal ornament, bags, and pouches, clothing in classes 14, 18, and 25 in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi).

Johnson’s baby vs. JOHANSON bebis

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Johnson & Johnson in trademark opposition who sought cancellation of TM Reg no. 6559102 for the “JOHANSON bebis” mark due to similarity to or likelihood of confusion with “Johnson’s baby”.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900314, decided on February 22, 2023]

JOHANSON bebis

JOHANSON LIFE Co., Ltd., a Korean company, filed the “JOHANSON bebis” mark (see below) for use on babies’ bottles and nasal aspirators in class 10 with the JPO on June 28, 2021.

Apparently, the company promotes babies’ bottles bearing the applied mark.

The mark was registered by the JPO on May 20, 2022, and published for opposition on May 30, 2022.

Johnson’s baby

Johnson & Johnson, one of the oldest pharmaceutical companies in the US, has owned TM Reg no. 4032368 for the stylized word mark “Johnson’s baby” (see below) on baby bottles, nursing bottles, teats, feeding cups, and cotton swabs in class 10 since 1997.

Johnson & Johnson filed an opposition against the “JOHANSON bebis” mark on August 1, 2022, and argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law due to visual and phonetical similarity and the likelihood of confusion between “JOHANSON bebis” and “Johnson’s baby” that has been famous for skin care products for baby when used on designated goods in class 10.

JPO Decision

The Opposition Board pointed out the produced evidence shows substantial use of the “Johnson’s” mark, however, none of them demonstrate actual use of the cited mark. If so, the Board has no reason to believe the cited mark has been well-recognized among relevant consumers in Japan.

As for the similarity of the mark, the Board found there is no risk of confusion between the opposed mark and the cited mark in appearance by means of the presence or absence of the device, and difference in the arrangement, composition, and number of alphabets.

Comparing the sound of “Johanson bebis” with “Johnson’s baby”, they are clearly distinguishable due to their different sound structures, and there is no risk of confusion in sound.  Besides, while the opposed mark does not have any specific concept, the cited mark gives rise to the meaning of “Johnson’s baby,” so there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in the concept. If so, the opposed mark shall be dissimilar to the cited mark from visual, phonetical, and conceptual points of view.

Assuming that the cited mark has not been widely recognized as a source indicator of Johnson & Johnson and has a low degree of similarity to the opposed mark, it is unlikely that relevant consumers would confuse a source of goods in question bearing the opposed mark with Johnson & Johnson.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to dismiss the entire allegations and found the opposed mark shall not be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) in relation to the cited mark.

Letter of Protest protects PUMA from Free-rider

Posted on

The JPO examiner raised her objection on the ground that TM App no. 2022-76159 for the stylized mark “SHIBA” was confusingly similar to the world-famous mark “PUMA” and filed with a malicious intent to harm PUMA as well as public interest.

Opposition vs Letter of Protest

Whenever a brand owner discovers a trademark application by a third party that may cause confusion or detrimental effect on your business, the owner is eager to block its registration by any means.

Opposition is one of the actions universally taken in such cases, however, it should be noted the success rate of opposition has been remarkably low (11% on average in the past six years) in Japan. Besides, the Japan Trademark Law does provide only “post-grant opposition” and the JPO has full discretion in deciding whether to cancel the opposed mark. Assumably, these factors affect the rate getting lower.

In this respect, a “letter of protest” is probably a better option instead.

Any person can use the letter of protest to give the JPO evidence about the registrability of a trademark in a pending application. There is no public data to show how effective the letter works to block the protested trademark, however, in my experience, as a Japanese trademark practitioner for twenty years, more than half of the letters resulted in a rejection of the protested trademark.

Protest to “SHIBA” mark

MARKS IP LAW FIRM, acting on behalf of PUMA SE, sent a letter of protest against TM App no. 2022-76159 for the stylized mark “SHIBA” (see below) in class 25 on November 25, 2022.

In the letter, we argued the protested mark is likely to cause confusion with PUMA SE because of its resemblance to the world-famous sports brand “PUMA”.

On February 17, 2023, the JPO examiner issued an office action refusing registration of the SHIBA mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv), (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by stating that:

The protested mark gives rise to a pronunciation of “Shiba” and the concept of “Shina Inu; a breed of small thick-coated agile dogs developed in Japan”.

Even though there is a difference in meaning and sound, by virtue of the remarkable degree of reputation and popularity of the PUMA mark and the impressive resemblance of both marks in appearance, the examiner has a reason to believe relevant consumers would confuse a source of the designated goods of class 25, namely clothing, belts, footwear, sportswear, sports shoes, and headgear, bearing the SHIBA mark with PUMA.

Besides, there is reasonable doubt that the applicant must have been aware of PUMA and applied for the protested mark with malicious intent to harm not only PUMA but also the public interest.

Unless the applicant is successful in persuading the examiner of the dissimilarity of the mark, the unlikelihood of confusion with PUMA, and the non-existence of malicious intent, it will be rejected as a matter of course.

It is my advice to take advantage of the letter of protest, rather than opposition if you want to protect your brand against free-rider in Japan.

“OLYMPIAD vs OLYMBEER” trademark battle

Posted on

The Japan IP High Court reversed a decision of the JPO that canceled the OLYMBEER mark due to its similarity to “OLYMPIAD” in contravention of Article 4(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law.

[Court case no. Reiwa4(Gyo-ke)10067, Judgment date: December 26, 2022]

OLYMBEER

SJP & Co., a Japanese company, filed a trademark application for the wordmark “OLYMBEER” with its transliteration written in Japanese Katakana character (see below) for use on beers, refreshing beverages, fruit juices, vegetable juices, extracts of hops for making beer, whey beverage in class 32 with the JPO on October 28, 2019, ahead of the opening of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic games.

The JPO examiner did not raise any objection to the OLYMBEER mark and granted protection on November 16, 2020 (TM Reg no. 6323630). Subsequently, the mark was published for opposition on December 22, 2020.

Opposition by IOC

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) filed an opposition against the OLYMBEER mark on February 22, 2021, before the lapse of a two-month statutory period counting from the publication date and claimed the OLYMBEER mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing “OLYMPIC” and “OLYMPIAN” mark.

In the course of trial proceedings, the JPO notified at their discretion that the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vi) due to a similarity to “OLYMPIAD” which has become famous to represent the modern Olympic Games.

Article 4(1)(vi)  

The article is a provision to prohibit registration of any mark that is identical with, or similar to, a famous mark indicating the State, a local government, an agency thereof, a　non-profit organization undertaking a business for the public interest, or a non-profit business for the public interest.

The Trademark Examination Guidelines (TEG) specify “IOC”, and “Olympic” shall be protectable under the article.

Consequently, the JPO decided to cancel the opposed mark based on Article 4(1)(vi) irrespective of no reference to the article by the IOC.

SJP & Co. brought the case to the IP High Court and argued that “OLYMPIAD” would not be such a famous mark as opposed to “Olympic” and the opposed mark is dissimilar to “OLYMPIAD” in its entirety from appearance, sound, and meaning.

IP High Court ruling

The IP High Court questioned if “OLYMPIAD” has become famous among relevant consumers and traders in relation to the goods in question from the produced evidence. If so, it is inadequate to assess the similarity of marks on the assumption that “OLYMPIAD” has acquired a substantial reputation.

The judge said in the decision a mere coincidence of “OLYM” is insufficient to find the similarity between “OLYMBEER” and “OLYMPIAD”. The judge stated that there is no reason to believe both marks are visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar when compared as a whole.

Based on the foregoing, the court found the JPO erred in applying Article 4(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law by wrongly finding the similarity of mark between “OLYMBEER” and “OLYMPIAD”, and thus the court ruled to reverse the JPO decision.

Failed trademark opposition by Volkswagen: POLO vs. QOLO

Posted on

On December 28, 2022, the JPO Opposition Board dismissed the opposition claimed by German car giant Volkswagen AG against TM Reg no. 6512258 for the wordmark “Qolo” by finding dissimilarity to, and the unlikelihood of confusion with VW’s famous car model name “Polo” even when used in relation to automobiles.

[Opposition Case no. 2022-900157]

Opposed mark

Qolo Inc., a Japanese start-up company, filed a trademark application for the wordmark “Qolo” for various goods and services in classes 9, 10, 12, 20, 37, 42, and 44 including automobiles and repair, maintenance, and rental of cars on September 7, 2021.

The JPO granted protection of the opposed mark on February 10, 2022, and published it for registration on February 21, 2022.

Opposition by VW

Volkswagen AG filed an opposition against the opposed mark on April 19, 2022, before the lapse of a two-month statutory period counting from the publication date and claimed the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing VW’s earlier TM Reg no. 600030-2 for wordmark “POLO” on automobiles in class 12.

VW argued the opposed mark “Qolo” is deemed similar to “POLO” from visual and phonetical points of view. The opposed mark designates “electric vehicles; automobiles” in class 12, “repair and maintenance of automobiles; vehicle battery charging” in class 37, and “rental of automobiles, vehicles” in class 39 that are deemed identical or similar to automobiles.

In view of the remarkable reputation of VW POLO cars and the close resemblance between “Qolo” and “POLO”, it is highly likely that relevant consumers confuse a source of goods and services of the opposed mark when used on automobiles and its related services.

JPO decision

The Board admitted the famousness of the “POLO” mark as a source indicator of VW cars based on the facts that the Volkswagen Polo has been continuously imported to Japan since 1996 and ranked in the top 7 of imported automobiles for the past two decades.

However, the Board found “POLO” and “Qolo” are dissimilar in appearance and sound.

The difference in the first letter consisting of four letters in total would be anything but visually negligible. Likewise, the different pronunciation in the 1st sound consisting of two sounds in total gives rise to a distinctive impression.

By taking into consideration a lower degree of similarity between the marks and lack of originality for the term “POLO”, which means a game played on horseback between two teams, each of four players, the Board negated a likelihood of confusion between “POLO” and “Qolo” even when the opposed mark is used on goods and services in question.

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

Philippe Starck Lost Trademark Dispute over Starck

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition claimed by Philippe Starck, a French designer, against TM Reg no. 6487488 for the wordmark “Starck” due to the unlikelihood of confusion when used on management, leasing, rental, purchase, and sale of buildings, and real estate agency services in class 36.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900079, Decision date: December 5, 2022]

Opposed mark

Starck Co., Ltd., a Japanese company, sought trademark registration of the wordmark “starck” in standard character to be used on services related to real estate in class 36 on July 2, 2021.

Without raising any objections in the course of substantive examination, the JPO granted protection of the opposed mark on December 13, 3021, and subsequently published for post-grant opposition on January 13, 2022.

Opposition by Philippe Starck

Philip Starck, a French designer known for his wide range of designs, including everything from interior design to household objects and architecture, filed an opposition with the JPO on March 15, 2022, just before the lapse of a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date.

He argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law in view of the high reputation of the term “Starch” as an indication of the opponent and close relatedness between the service in question and architectural design service.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board did not admit the famousness of the mark “Starck” as a source indicator of the opponent’s design service from the produced evidence even though the Board found the mark has acquired a certain degree of recognition as a name of designer among relevant consumers.

Besides, the Board considered architectural design services shall be remotely associated with the management, leasing, rental, purchase, and sale of buildings, and real estate agency services in class 36.

If so, irrespective of the identical marks, the Board has no reason to believe relevant consumers would conceive of the opponent at a slight of the service in question using the opposed mark and confuse its source 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.

HYATT lost a trademark dispute in Japan: GRAND CLUB vs GRAN CLUB

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with HYATT and dismissed an invalidation petition against TM Reg no. 6186629 for the wordmark “GRAN CLUB” by finding dissimilarity to HYATT’s earlier mark “GRAND CLUB”.

[Invalidation case no. 2022-890018, Decision date: December 14, 2022]

GRAN CLUB

The disputed mark, consisting of the word mark “GRAN CLUB” in standard character was filed by Memolead Wellness Co., Ltd., a Japanese company for use in restaurants, hotels and temporary accommodations, retirement homes, beauty salons, and other services in class 43 and 44 on September 13, 2018, with the JPO. The JPO examiner granted protection on September 10, 2019.

Apparently, the applicant uses the mark on their facility to provide a sports club, fitness gym, spa, beauty salon, sauna, café, and social club in Takasaki City, Gunma Prefecture (Japan).

GRAND CLUB

Hyatt International Corporation has effectively owned earlier TM Reg no. 4604602 for the wordmark “GRAND CLUB” in standard character on hotels, restaurants, beauty salons, and other services in Japan.

Hyatt filed an invalidation petition against “GRAN CLUB” with the JPO on March 18, 2022, and argued the disputed mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law due to a close resemblance between “GRAND CLUB” and “GRAND CLUB” to be used on identical or similar services.

JPO Decision

The JPO Invalidation Board found the disputed mark “GRAN CLUB” does not give rise to any specific meaning as well as the cited mark “GRAND CLUB”.

From the appearance, the Board found both marks are distinguishable by virtue of the presence or absence of the letter “D” in the middle of the marks.

Besides, the Board had a view that it is unlikely relevant consumers audibly confuse “ɡræn-klʌb” with “ɡrænd-klʌb” in view of short phonetic compositions of six or seven sounds.

Hyatt argued “GRAND CLUB” can be called “ɡræn-klʌb” among Japanese consumers based on a lot of hotels and facilities with a mark containing the term “GRAN” that is ordinary called “ɡræn”. However, the Board held the examples are neither direct nor relevant to find “GRAND CLUB” is pronounced as  “ɡræn-klʌb” by relevant consumers.

Given both marks are incomparable to the concept, the Board has a reason to believe both marks give rise to a different impression in the mind of consumers from visual, phonetical, and conceptual points of view.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded “GRAN CLUB” and “GRAND CLUB” are dissimilar and declared the validity of the disputed mark.

Trademark dispute: “Swan Angel” vs “ANGEL SWAN”

Posted on

In a recent decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) declared invalidation of TM Reg no. 5947687 for the word mark “Swan Angel” in class 41 due to a similarity to “ANGEL SWAN”.

[Invalidation case no. 2022-890031, Decision date: December 1, 2022]

Swan Angel

Disputed mark, consisting of the wordmark “Swan Angel” in standard character, was filed for use on various services including ballet school in class 41 with the JPO by a Japanese individual on October 5, 2016, and registered on May 19, 2017 (TM Reg no. 5947687).

Invalidation petition

On May 10, 2022, just before the lapse of a five-year statute of limitations, an owner of earlier TM Reg no. 5509646 for wordmark “ANGEL SWAN” in standard character filed a petition for invalidation against the disputed mark.

The owner argued disputed mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by stating “Swan Angel” is confusingly similar to “ANGEL SWAN” and ballet school and other services pertinent to ballet is deemed similar to the service in class 41 designated under the earlier mark since it also relates to ballet.

JPO decision

In an assessment of the similarity of marks, the JPO Invalidation Board stated:

Both the disputed mark and the cited mark consist of the two English words, “Swan” and “Angel”, commonly known among general consumers in Japan and it is reasonable to assume that relevant traders and consumers at the sight of both marks will see the words being placed in reverse order.

Even if there is a difference in the order of two words between the marks, the Board has no reason to believe the difference gives rise to any distinct meaning as a whole.

If so, relevant traders and consumers are likely to recognize the respective marks as a combination of “swan” and “angel” in sound and concept irrespective of the reversed order.

In this respect, both marks look similar in appearance because of the same words, font, and alphabet.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found the disputed mark “Swan Angel” is confusingly similar to the cited mark “ANGEL SWAN” from visual, phonetical, and conceptual points of view.

Taking account of another factor that respective services pertinent to ballet are deemed identical or similar as well, the Board concluded the disputed mark shall be retroactively invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi).

Failed Opposition by Monster Energy over PREDATOR mark

Posted on

In a trademark opposition claimed by Monster Energy Company against TM Reg no. 6471165 for the stylized PREDATOR mark in class 30, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the opposition by finding dissimilarity of goods between ‘coffee, tea, cocoa’ and ‘carbonated beverages, energy drink’ in class 32.

[Opposition case no. 2022-900010, decided on November 7, 2022]

Opposed mark

Acer Incorporated, a Taiwanese multinational hardware, and electronics corporation filed a stylized mark “PREDATOR” (see below) for use on various foods including ‘instant coffee, coffee beverages, coffee, tea, cocoa’ in class 30 with the JPO on January 6, 2021.

The JPO examiner granted protection on November 11, 2021 (TM Reg no. 5461165), and the opposed mark was published for opposition on December 7, 2021.

Opposition by Monster Energy

Monster Energy Company filed an opposition on January 13, 2022, and claimed the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing TM Reg no. 6408734 for word mark “PREDATOR” in standard character over ‘carbonated beverages; energy drink’ in class 32.

The opponent argued that ‘instant coffee, coffee beverages, coffee, tea, cocoa’ designated in class 30 shall be deemed similar to ‘carbonated beverages; energy drink’ in class 32 because:
(1) five major Japanese beverage suppliers manufacture and distribute not only the goods in question, but also other beverages identical or similar to the cited drinks e.g., soft drinks, fruit drinks, beverage vegetable juices, and whey drinks.
(2) Both goods are generally sold at convenience stores, supermarkets, department stores, drugstores, and other food outlets, vending machines, and train station kiosks, so they share the same sales locations.
(3) Both ingredients overlap and their uses as non-alcoholic beverages are common. Namely, there are purchased and consumed at teatime, for relaxation during breaks, for hydration, and as drinks during and after meals.
(4) Both goods are consumed by general consumers.

It is indisputable that both marks are similar in sound and meaning. Being that both marks and goods are deemed similar, the opposed mark shall not be registrable under Article 4(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found similarities in both marks.

However, the Board did not uphold the argument pertinent to the similarity of goods by stating that:

Although it is true the main consumers of non-alcoholic beverages are general consumers, that they are ultimately sold in the same vending machines and sales corners, and that they are consumed for similar purposes, the Board has a reason to believe these goods have different suppliers, gradients, and distribution channels more often than not. If so, both goods shall not be considered similar at all events.

Based on the above findings, the Board decided the opposed mark shall not be canceled and dismissed the oppositions by Monster Energy entirely.