In a trademark opposition filed by U.S. tech giant Apple Inc. against TM Reg no. 6737922, alleging similarity or likelihood of confusion with Apple Inc.’s iconic logo, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) rejected the opposition.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900267 decided on July 11, 2024]
Opposed mark
A Japanese individual filed a device mark representing a quarter-cut apple (see below left) with the JPO for registration on January 31, 2023 for use on various goods in Classes 9, 18, 24 and 25.
The mark was registered on September 21, without benign confronted with any office action in the course of the substantive examination by the JPO examiner.
Opposition by Apple Inc.
Apple Inc. filed an opposition on November 30, 2023. Apple argued that the mark should be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law due to similarity or likelihood of confusion with its famous “bitten apple” logo (see above right) when used on any goods in the designated classes.
Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registration of a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, an earlier 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, to the benefit of brand owners and users.
JPO decision
The JPO did not question famousness the opponent iconic logo as a source indicator of Apple Inc. among relevant consumers of any goods in question.
In the meantime, the JPO found the opposed mark dissimilar to the Apple logo by stating that:
Even though both marks represent an apple having a leaf-like figure at the top, there is clear distinctions in configurations that the fruit has been cut or bitten off. Therefore, the Board believes these are distinguishable from appearance when they are observed at different times and places.
The opposed mark does not have a specific meaning, while the opponent mark gives rise to a meaning of “a house mark of Apple Inc.” Accordingly, both marks are distinguishable in concept.
Even if a phonetical comparison is neutral as neither the opposed mark nor the opponent mark has any clear sound, both marks are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion from visual and conceptual points of view.
Given a low degree of similarity between two marks,the Board has a reason to believe that, regardless of the reputation of the opponent mark, the relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse a source of the goods in question bearing the opposed mark with the opponent.
Based on the foregoing, the JPO Opposition Board found the opposition groundless and decided to dismiss the opposition entirely.