投稿者: Masaki MIKAMI

Japan Court Recognizes Voice Is A Protected Publicity Right for 1st Time

Posted on

How far does protection extend when AI can duplicate a performer’s unique voice in seconds?

A landmark judgment by the Tokyo District Court (September 30, 2026) has taken a decisive first step toward answering this question, establishing Japan’s very first judicial precedent recognizing the Right of Publicity for a performer’s voice.
[Court case no. Reiwa7(wa)70635]

Use of AI to imitate the voices of actors and singers without permission

Kenjiro Tsuda—the iconic, deep-voiced actor behind legendary roles like Kento Nanami in Jujutsu Kaisen—found his voice cloned by Generative AI and used without permission across 188 TikTok videos narrating urban legends.

While the creator claimed the AI was trained on a “friend who is good at voice impressions,” listeners immediately recognized the distinct cadence of Tsuda’s famous voice, prompting widespread confusion in the comment sections.

Seeking to protect his identity and work, Tsuda took action against TikTok (TikTok Pte. Ltd.), filing an injunction to delete the offending content under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and the Right of Publicity.


According to the legal complaint, a total of 188 videos narrated by a voice imitating Tsuda’s were posted from a specific account between July 2024 and September 2025.

The account had some 210,000 subscribers, and the average number of views for the videos was roughly 1.47 million per video, allowing the creator to earn between ¥500,000 ($3,100) and ¥750,000 a month. Many of the subscribers commented that the narrations sounded like Tsuda.

The Court’s Groundbreaking Statement

In its ruling, the Tokyo District Court articulated a vital legal standard for the modern AI era:

“A person’s voice, like their image, serves as a symbol of personal identity. […] The unauthorized use of a performer’s voice constitutes an infringement on the Right of Publicity if the voice possesses customer-attracting power and the act solely aims to exploit that power.”

Although the court ultimately dismissed the specific request for content deletion—because the TikTok account owner had already deleted the account and the underlying server data had expired—the legal threshold was officially established.

Why This Precedent Matters

As Generative AI rapidly reshapes entertainment and media, voice synthesis technology presents both immense creative potential and serious ethical and economic risks for creators.

By recognizing that a voice carries commercial value and personal identity worth legal protection, the Japanese judiciary has sent a clear message: A voice is not public domain; it is a human identity worth safeguarding.

“GPT Killer” Killed by OpenAI’s “GPT” Trademark Opposition

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) issued a decision sustaining the opposition filed by OpenAI, Inc. against TM Reg no. 6952120 “GPT Killer” in Class 9 due to similarity to and a likelihood of confusion with the well-known mark “GPT” indicating OpenAI’s Large Language Model (LLM).
[Opposition case no. 2025-900207, decided on September 7, 2026]

Contested mark: “GPT Killer”

The trademark at issue (Reg. No. 6952120) consists of the stylized word “GPT Killer” (see below).

  • Applicant: Muhayu Incorporated (South Korea)
  • Application Date: October 11, 2024
  • Registration Date: July 28, 2025
  • Designated Goods (Class 9): Computer software for detecting plagiarism by generative AI, data processing software, mobile software platforms, downloadable image files, etc.

Opposition by OpenAI

On October 6, 2025, OpenAI filed an opposition asserting that the mark “GPT Killer” is confusingly similar to its prior marks, including “GPT”, “ChatGPT”, “GPT-3”, “GPT-4”, “GPT-5”, “GPT-6”, “GPT-7”, and “GPT Store”, and thus violates Article 4(1)(xi) (similarity to a prior registered mark) and Article 4(1)(xv) (likelihood of confusion as to the origin).

OpenAI argued that:

  1. “GPT” is widely recognized among consumers as representing OpenAI’s specific LLM and generative AI services rather than being a generic or descriptive IT term.
  2. The term “GPT” constitutes the dominant and essential element (yobu) of the “GPT Killer” mark, allowing comparison based primarily on that portion.

JPO Decision

The JPO ruled in favor of OpenAI on the following grounds:

1. High Reputation and Distinctiveness of “GPT” and “ChatGPT”

The JPO acknowledged that “ChatGPT” rapidly gained high recognition in Japan shortly after its launch in late 2022. Furthermore, various Japanese IT publications, media reports, and the establishment of OpenAI’s Japanese entity in April 2024 contributed to making “GPT” widely recognized among Japanese consumers as a prominent source indicator for OpenAI’s underlying LLM. The JPO also noted that “GPT” possesses a high degree of distinctiveness as a coined mark.

2. Dominant Element and Likelihood of Confusion (Article 4(1)(xi))

Analyzing the mark visual appearance, the JPO found that “GPT” (in bold uppercase) and “Killer” (with stylized lowercase lettering) are visually distinct. Since “Killer” is a common English word meaning “one that kills,” the term “GPT” stands out as the dominant element (yobu) capturing consumers’ attention.

Comparing the essential element “GPT” with OpenAI’s registered “GPT” mark:

  • Appearance: Similar.
  • Pronunciation: Identical (“Gee-Pee-Tee”).
  • Concept: Identical (referring to OpenAI’s LLM).

Consequently, the JPO held that “GPT Killer” is similar to OpenAI’s mark and covers identical/similar goods (computer software in Class 9).

3. Likelihood of Confusion (Article 4(1)(xv))

Considering the high degree of recognition and distinctiveness of OpenAI’s marks, the high similarity between the marks, and the close relation between plagiarism-detection software, downloadable image files, and AI services, the JPO determined that consumers encountering “GPT Killer” would associate it with OpenAI or assume a commercial connection between the two entities.

JPO Dismisses IOC’s Opposition Against “OLYMPIA” Logo Mark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) seeking the cancellation of Trademark Reg. No. 6571632 for a composite mark containing the word “OLYMPIA” in Class 44.
[Opposition case no. 2022-900358, decided on August 27, 2026]

Contested mark

The contested mark consists of three elements arranged vertically as shown below in connection with the services of “Providing massage, chiropractic, acupuncture, moxibustion, judo seifuku (bone setting), aromatherapy, and nutritional guidance” in Class 44.

  1. Top: A design depicting a droplet shape wrapped from below by two arc-shaped branches with leaves facing each other.
  2. Middle: The word “OLYMPIA” represented in bold, prominent lettering (with a larger letter “O”).
  3. Bottom: The phrase “OLYMPIA is the concierge of your body.” in smaller, thin text.

The mark was filed by a Japanese individual with the JPO on March 24, 2022. By virtue of the accelerated examination requested by the applicant, the mark was granted registration in less than three months, on June 14, 2022. [TM Reg no. 6571632]

https://www.karada-concierge.com/

IOC’s Opposition

The opponent, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), filed an opposition on August 22, 2022, arguing that the registration should be canceled under Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japanese Trademark Law, which prohibits registration of marks likely to cause confusion with another person’s well-known goods or services.

The IOC relied on IR no. 1128501 for its well-known mark “OLYMPIC” (and related marks/symbols), claiming that:

  • The prefix “OLYMPI-” is identical.
  • The opponent uses various terms starting with “OLYMPI-” such as “OLYMPIAN” or “OLYMPISM.”
  • The leaf-branch design in the contested mark evokes an association with the Olympic Games (e.g., laurel crowns).
  • Due to the immense fame of the “OLYMPIC” mark, relevant consumers in Japan would associate the contested mark with the IOC or assume a business or economic connection between the parties.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board dismissed the IOC’s arguments and maintained the registration based on the following grounds:

1. Famousness of the Opponent’s Mark

The Board recognized that the cited mark “OLYMPIC” is widely famous among Japanese consumers as an indicator of the Olympic Games hosted by the IOC.

2. Degree of Similarity Between the Marks

  • Dominant Portion: The Board held that the middle text “OLYMPIA” serves as the dominant, distinctive feature of the contested mark because the top logo design generates no specific conceptual meaning and the bottom sentence (“OLYMPIA is the concierge of your body.”) is printed in extremely small font and lacks distinctive dominance.
  • Visual: Comparing “OLYMPIA” and “OLYMPIC,” both consist of 7 letters, sharing the first 6 letters in upper-case letters. Although the ending letters (“A” vs. “C”) differ, the visual impression remains similar.
  • Aural: “OLYMPIA” (5 syllables: O-ri-n-pi-a) and “OLYMPIC” (6 syllables: O-ri-n-pi-k-ku) share the first 4 syllables (O-ri-n-pi), but the endings (-a vs. -k-ku) are clearly distinguishable by ear.
  • Conceptual:
    • “OLYMPIA” evokes the concept of Olympia, the ancient Greek plain and birthplace of the ancient Olympic Games.
    • “OLYMPIC” evokes the modern Olympic Games.
    • Because “OLYMPIA” is a recognized geographic name/dictionary word, the two marks convey distinct concepts and do not cause conceptual confusion.
  • Overall: Although visually similar to some degree, the low similarity in sound and distinctness in concept mean the overall degree of similarity between the marks is low.

3. Connection Between Services and Likelihood of Confusion

  • Service Relationship: The contested services in Class 44 (massage, chiropractic, acupuncture, nutritional guidance, etc.) differ significantly in nature, purpose, channels of trade, and business categories from the IOC’s core services (planning and managing sports events). The connection between the respective services is very low.
  • No False Association: The Board rejected the IOC’s claim that the leaf/droplet design in the contested mark misleads consumers into believing there is an official association with the Olympic Games, as there was no evidence showing that this specific design is widely used by or associated with the Olympic Games.
  • Conclusion: Given the low similarity between the marks and the low relationship between the services, relevant consumers in Japan are unlikely to associate “OLYMPIA” with “OLYMPIC” or assume any organizational or economic connection to the IOC.

Accordingly, the JPO concluded that the contested mark does not fall under Article 4(1)(xv) and upheld the registration.

“We Are The World”: JPO Appeal Board Allows Registration of Iconic Song Title Mark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) Appeal Board overturned an examiner’s refusal of the word mark “We Are The World” in Classes 9, 35, 36, and 42 by finding that registering the title of the famous 1985 charity song by an unrelated third party would neither breach international comity nor disrupt fair trade under Article 4(1)(vii).
[Appeal case no. 2026-9743, decided on August 20, 2026]

“We Are The World”

The subject mark consists of the words “We Are The World” in block letters (see below), filed by a Japanese individual on October 6, 2025. [TM App no. 2025-114656]

Following amendments, the designated goods and services spanned four classes:

  • Class 9: Computer software and electronics
  • Class 35: Business management and advertising services
  • Class 36: Financial and monetary services
  • Class 42: Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) and technology services

JPO Examiner’s Refusal

The JPO examiner refused the application under Article 4(1)(vii) of the Japan Trademark Law, which prohibits the registration of trademarks that are likely to harm public order or morality.

The examiner reasoned that:

  1. World-Famous Song: “We Are The World” is a world-renowned charity song released in 1985, produced by Quincy Jones and co-written by Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie, sung by 45 famous artists under the name “USA for Africa.”
  2. Enduring Fame: Even after 40 years, the title remains widely recognized in Japan as a monumental charity anthem, frequently used in connection with global humanitarian relief projects (e.g., natural disasters, COVID-19 pandemic relief).
  3. Morality Violation: Allowing an individual with no connection to the song or its rights holders to register the mark without authorization would free-ride on the fame and reputation of a globally famous song. The examiner concluded that monopolizing the mark would injure the honor of the rights holders, disrupt fair trade, and violate international comity, thus running counter to public order and morality.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the applicant filed an appeal with the JPO Appeal Board on June 17, 2026.

JPO Appeal Board Decision

Upon ex officio examination, the Appeal Board revoked the examiner’s refusal and granted registration, providing the following reasoning:

  1. Meaning and Perception: While the Board acknowledged that the phrase is recognized to a certain degree in Japan as the title of the 1985 pop song, the constituent words (“We,” “Are,” “The,” and “World”) are extremely basic, elementary English words. Consumers can easily understand the mark as simply meaning “We are the world,” meaning the phrase does not invariably point to the song title alone.
  2. No Intrinsic Offensiveness: The phrase itself contains no immoral, obscene, discriminatory, extreme, or offensive elements.
  3. Strict Criteria for Article 4(1)(vii): The Board affirmed that Article 4(1)(vii) is applied narrowly. The evidence failed to demonstrate that:
    • Use of the mark would violate public interest or general social morals;
    • The mark is prohibited by other laws;
    • The mark insults a specific nation/citizens or breaches international comity; or
    • The filing circumstance was so socially unacceptable as to undermine the statutory trademark order.

Finding no concrete facts or special circumstances to justify a public morality bar—and discovering no other grounds for refusal—the JPO Appeal Board granted registration to the mark.

“LuLuLun” vs. “rururun”: JPO Dismisses Opposition by Popular Face Mask Brand Against Footwear Mark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Dr. LuLuLun Inc., maker of Japan’s top-selling face mask brand “LuLuLun”, seeking to cancel trademark registration No. 6995158 for a stylized mark “rururun / ルルルン” registered for footwear and apparel in Class 25, due to visual distinctions and the limited reputation of the cited mark outside the field of face masks and related cosmetics.
[Opposition case no. 2026-900047, decided on August 4, 2026]

“rururun / ルルルン”

The opposed mark (Reg. No. 6995158) consists of the stylized white-out alphabets “rururun” (with small circular cutouts inside the two “u”s) positioned above the small Japanese Katakana characters “ルルルン” (transliteration of “rururun” and a pink horizontal rectangle (see below).

The mark was applied for on September 12, 2025, by My Planet Co., Ltd. and registered on December 9, 2025, for footwear, slippers, sandals, clothing, and related goods in Class 25.

Opposition by Dr. LuLuLun

On opposition, Dr. LuLuLun Inc. claimed that the opposed mark should be canceled under Articles 4(1)(xv) and 4(1)(xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

The opponent argued that:

  1. High Renown: The cited marks for LuLuLun (TM Reg. Nos. 5473904 and 5662305) have achieved immense fame as Japan’s No. 1 face mask brand, selling over 2.4 billion sheets across 20,000 retail locations nationwide.
  2. Likelihood of Confusion (Article 4(1)(xv)): The marks share the exact same phonetic reading. Moreover, given the increasing trend of cosmetic brands collaborating with fashion and loungewear brands (e.g., SNIDEL HOME, LUSH, SHISEIDO MEN), consumers would likely assume a commercial connection or assiciation between the parties.
  3. Bad Faith / Free-Riding (Article 4(1)(xix)): The applicant advertised slippers on a home shopping channel using the mark and customer reviews included comments such as, “I thought it was a bit pricey, but since it’s a LuLuLun product, I clicked buy,” demonstrating clear intent to free-ride on the opponent’s goodwill.

JPO Board Decision

The JPO Board dismissed the opposition on August 4, 2026, upholding the registration of the opposed mark based on the following findings:

  1. Scope of Well-Knownness: The Board recognized that “LuLuLun” is well-known among Japanese consumers for face masks and closely related cosmetic products. However, there was no evidence showing that the mark’s fame extended beyond cosmetics into apparel, footwear, or general daily goods.
  2. Visual & Overall Dissimilarity:
    • Visuals: The marks differ significantly in overall configuration, background shapes, and typography. Comparing the letterings, “rururun” (with initial/internal ‘r’s) and “LuLuLun” (with prominent ‘L’s) leave distinctly different visual impressions.
    • Phonetics & Semantics: While both marks share the identical phonetic sound “rururun”, sound alone cannot override the severe visual differences. Neither mark conveys a specific conceptual meaning.
    • Conclusion on Similarity: Taken as a whole, the marks are dis-similar.
  3. No Likelihood of Confusion (Article 4(1)(xv)): Given the low degree of similarity between the marks and the difference in commercial channels (cosmetics vs. footwear/clothing), consumers are unlikely to confuse the origin of the goods in question or assume an organizational connection. The Board noted that brand collaborations alone do not mean cosmetics and apparel are produced or distributed by the same entities as a general market practice.
  4. No Bad Faith (Article 4(1)(xix)): The evidence was insufficient to establish that the trademark owner acted with unfair intent or bad faith to dilute or free-ride on the opponent’s brand reputation.

“Wemby”: JPO Appeal Board Overturns Refusal of NBA Star Victor Wembanyama’s Nickname

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s refusal, and granted registration of IR 1762131 for the word mark “Wemby” in Class 25 by finding that the term has not been well-known among Japanese consumers as a nickname for NBA superstar Victor Wembanyama.
[Appeal case no. 2025-650079, decided on July 23, 2026]

“Wemby”

The subject mark consists of the word “Wemby” in standard block letters for athletic clothing, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats, caps, socks, shorts, hoodies, sweatshirts, and athletic uniforms in Class 25 (International Registration No. 1762131).

The application was filed internationally by an individual named Michael Ward on October 23, 2023, claiming the Paris Convention priority based on a Canadian application filed on June 13, 2023.

JPO Examiner’s Refusal

On May 27, 2025, the JPO examiner issued a refusal decision under Article 4(1)(viii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(viii) prohibits the registration of trademarks that contain the name, famous abbreviation, or portrait of another person, unless consent from that person has been obtained.

The examiner reasoned that “Wemby” is a famous abbreviation/nickname for Victor Wembanyama, the French professional basketball player drafted by the NBA’s San Antonio Spurs, and that the applicant had not obtained Mr. Wembanyama’s consent.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the applicant filed an appeal with the JPO Appeal Board on September 11, 2025.

JPO Appeal Board Decision

Upon ex officio examination, the Appeal Board revoked the refusal and admitted the mark for registration, citing the following key grounds:

  1. Inherent Meaning: “Wemby” is not a standard dictionary word in Japan and is perceived by consumers as an invented/coined word without a specific meaning.
  2. Recognition Among Fans vs. General Public: While the Board acknowledged that “Wemby” is known to a certain degree among basketball enthusiasts as the nickname of Victor Wembanyama, Article 4(3) mandates that the requirements of Article 4(1)(viii) must be satisfied both at the time of filing and at the time of the Board decision.
  3. Assessment at the Priority Date: The crucial benchmark date for assessing well-knownness was June 13, 2023 (the Canadian priority date). The Board found no concrete evidence demonstrating that the nickname “Wemby” was widely known among the general public in Japan as of June 13, 2023, prior to his NBA debut season taking full effect.

Consequently, the Board concluded that “Wemby” could not be regarded as a “well-known abbreviation of another person’s name” under Article 4(1)(viii) at the time of filing.

Finding no other grounds for refusal, the JPO Appeal Board granted registration to the mark.

Marriott’s W Hotels Fails to Overturn Registration of “THE W Relax Garden Resort” in Japan

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Marriott International’s affiliate against the trademark registration for standard characters “THE W Relax Garden Resort” (TM Reg. No. 6977166), finding it dissimilar to the famous luxury hotel brand’s “W / HOTELS” composite marks and concluding that there was no likelihood of confusion under Japanese trademark law.
[Opposition Case No. 2025-900283, Decided on July 23, 2026]

Contested Mark

The contested mark, consisting of the standard characters “THE W Relax Garden Resort”, was filed by Sokyu Co., Ltd. with the JPO on July 23, 2025 [TM App. No. 2025-83433], designating services in Class 43 (e.g., providing temporary accommodation, catering, campground facilities) and Class 44 (e.g., providing bath/sauna facilities, beauty salon services, massage, landscape design).

The applicant filed a request for accelerated examination with the JPO on the filing date based on the fact that it had already launched glamping resort facilities using the mark in Japan. Accordingly, the contested mark was registered on October 15, 2025, without facing any office action [TM Reg no. 6977166].

https://thew.jp/

Opposition by Marriott / W Hotels

The Opponent (owner of the W HOTELS brand under Marriott International) filed a trademark opposition on December 15, 2025, requesting the cancellation of the contested registration under Articles 4(1)(xi) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japanese Trademark Law.

The Opponent cited four prior registrations (including TM Reg. Nos. 4965244, 5331759, 5046547, and 5294655) for composite marks featuring a prominent, styled letter “W” positioned above the smaller word “HOTELS” (see below) in Classes 35, 36, 39, 43, 44, and 45.

Main Arguments of the Opponent

  1. Similarity of Marks (Article 4(1)(xi)):
    • The prefix “THE W” forms the dominant visual and distinctive feature of the contested mark because the subsequent portion, “Relax Garden Resort,” merely indicates the characteristics and nature of hotel/resort/spa services in Class 43 and Class 44.
    • Excluding the generic English definite article “THE,” consumers would focus on “W”, rendering the contested mark confusingly similar in sound and concept to the cited “W / HOTELS” marks.
  2. Likelihood of Confusion / Reputation (Article 4(1)(xv)):
    • Since the opening of W New York in 1998, the W HOTELS brand has expanded to around 70 luxury lifestyle hotel locations globally. In Japan, W OSAKA opened in March 2021 to significant media coverage and won three titles at the 2023 World Luxury Hotel Awards.
    • Due to extensive promotional activities, community collaborations, and media exposure, the cited “W / HOTELS” mark and the standalone “W” logo had become widely known among Japanese traders and consumers as source indicators of the Opponent’s high-end hotel, dining, spa, and event services.
    • Therefore, use of “THE W Relax Garden Resort” on identical or closely related services would lead relevant consumers to misbelieve that the services originate from or are economically connected to Marriott’s W Hotels brand.

JPO Board Decision

The JPO Opposition Board evaluated both grounds and ruled to maintain the registration.

1. Assessment of Mark Similarity (Article 4(1)(xi))

  • Visual Aspect: The contested mark “THE W Relax Garden Resort” is composed of plain standard characters rendered continuously with uniform font and size. Although both marks share the single letter “W,” their overall character sequences are entirely different, making them clearly distinguishable visually.
  • Aural Aspect: The contested mark is pronounced smoothly as a single unit: “Za-Da-Bu-Ryu-Ri-Rak-Ku-Su-Gaa-Den-Ri-Zoo-To.” In contrast, the cited mark yields the pronunciation “Da-Bu-Ryu-Ho-Te-Ru-Zu.” The sound structures, cadences, and syllable counts are distinct and easily distinguishable by ear.
  • Conceptual Aspect: Neither mark produces a specific, definite conceptual meaning as a whole. Thus, a conceptual comparison cannot be drawn.

Consequently, considering the overall visual, aural, and conceptual differences, the Board concluded that the marks are dissimilar as a whole, rendering Article 4(1)(xi) inapplicable even though the services in question are identical or similar.

2. Lack of Concrete Evidence on Well-Known Status & No Likelihood of Confusion (Article 4(1)(xv))

  • Insufficient Quantitative Proof: While the Opponent established the global presence of W Hotels and the opening of W OSAKA in 2021 alongside local event participation, the Board pointed out that the Opponent failed to submit concrete, quantitative evidence—such as overall sales turnover, market share in Japan, and the specific scale/budget/reach of advertising campaigns using the cited marks.
  • Without objective numerical evidence, the Board could not find that the cited mark “W / HOTELS” or the standalone “W” logo had achieved a high degree of recognition (well-known status) among Japanese consumers at the time of filing or registration of the contested mark.
  • Low Similarity Eliminates Confusion: Furthermore, because “THE W Relax Garden Resort” and “W / HOTELS” are overall dissimilar marks, consumers encountering the contested mark on Class 43 or Class 44 services would not reasonably associate or connect it with Marriott’s W Hotels brand.

The Flash: Fame Alone Does Not Establish Likelihood of Confusion in Japan

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition against a device mark featuring a stylized lightning bolt surrounded by two circular arcs, finding it dissimilar to an earlier composite mark featuring the wording “The FLASH” and a lightning-bolt device cited by DC Comics. The JPO also found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the cited mark had become well known or famous in Japan.
[Opposition Case No. 2025-900260, decided on July 22, 2026]

Contested Mark

SPECIAL HEROES Inc., LTD. filed a trademark application for a device mark that consists of a stylized lightning-bolt design surrounded by two circular arcs (see below) in connection with apparel, sports shoes, sportswear in Class 25 and sports equipment in Class 28 with the JPO on February 18, 2025 [TM App. No. 2025-22711].

The application proceeded to registration without an office action being issued. The mark was registered on October 21, 2025, and published for a two-month post-registration opposition period on October 29, 2025.

Opposition by DC Comics

DC Comics, one of the largest and oldest American comic-book publishers, filed an opposition against the contested mark on November 28, 2025, arguing that the registration should be cancelled under Articles 4(1)(xi) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japanese Trademark Law.

The opponent cited TM Reg. No. 6701619 for a composite mark that consists of the stylized term “The FLASH” and a thin-lined lightning-bolt device with two bends surrounded by a circular arc (see below), registered in Class 25 and other classes.

The opponent argued that, in light of the high level of recognition of the American comic “The FLASH” and the close resemblance between the contested mark and the figurative element of the cited mark, relevant consumers would be likely to confuse the source of the goods bearing the contested mark with those of the opponent.

JPO Decision

1. Fame Must Be Established with Concrete Market Evidence

The opponent submitted evidence showing that “The Flash” has been used since 1940 as the title of an American comic book and as the name of its character. The character is also associated with a distinctive emblem combining a circular design and a lightning bolt.

The evidence further indicated that comic books, merchandise such as figures, DVDs, and other works featuring the character have been available in Japan. There was also evidence of a pop-up shop in Kanagawa Prefecture in 2017 and an animated film featuring the character.

Nevertheless, the JPO found this evidence insufficient to establish that the cited mark was well known or famous in Japan.

In particular, the evidence did not sufficiently establish:

  • when the relevant goods or services were first marketed in Japan;
  • sales volumes or market share;
  • the scale of advertising and promotional activities; or
  • other concrete evidence demonstrating the extent of recognition among Japanese traders and consumers.

2. Assessment of Similarity

Although both marks shared the basic concept of combining a lightning-bolt design with a circular arc, the JPO found significant differences in:

  • the number of bends in the lightning bolt;
  • the thickness of the lines;
  • the number of circular arcs;
  • the thickness of the arcs; and
  • whether the lightning bolt and circular arc were connected.

These differences were considered sufficient to make the two figurative elements clearly distinguishable in appearance.

The JPO also found that the contested mark had no specific pronunciation or conceptual meaning because the lightning-bolt design did not convey a sufficiently definite meaning. By contrast, the cited mark gives rise to the pronunciations “THE FLASH” or “FLASH” and the concept of a “flash” or “sudden burst of light.”

Accordingly, the JPO found that the marks were distinguishable in appearance, pronunciation, and meaning, and that their degree of similarity was low.

3. No Likelihood of Confusion

Since the opponent had failed to establish that the cited mark was sufficiently well known or famous in Japan at the filing date of the contested mark, and the degree of similarity between the marks was low, the JPO concluded that consumers would not associate the contested mark with the cited mark or mistakenly believe that the goods originated from the opponent or an economically or organizationally related entity.

The opposition was therefore dismissed, as the contested mark did not fall under Article 4(1)(xi) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japanese Trademark Law.

JPO found “BUZZ Pay” dissimilar to “BUZZ” for cashless payment services

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) Appeal Board reversed an examiner’s refusal of “BUZZ Pay,” finding that it was dissimilar to the earlier mark “BUZZ” for cashless payment services.
[Appeal case no. 2026-004207, decided on July 23, 2026]

1. BUZZ Pay (Applied Mark)

The applicant, BUZZ GROUP Co., Ltd., filed a trademark application for the word mark “BUZZ Pay” in standard character for use in connection with cashless payment services, such as cryptocurrency management/exchange, electronic funds transfer, credit/debit card payment settlement, prepaid card issuance in Class 36 with the JPO on July 14, 2025 [TM App no. 2025-79480].

2. Examiner’s Refusal / Cited Mark

The JPO Examiner refused the registration of the applied mark “BUZZ Pay” under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japanese Trademark Law (prohibiting registration of marks similar to prior registered trademarks) by citing TM Reg no. 6346356 for a composite mark consisting of the term “BUZZ” and a device featuring two hexagonal frames with a yellow lightning bolt (see below) in Class 36.

The examiner considered the initial term “BUZZ” as the dominant/essential portion of “BUZZ Pay” and concluded that it was confusingly similar to the cited mark “BUZZ”.

To contest, the applicant appealed the examiner’s refusal to the JPO Appeal Board.

3. JPO Appeal Board Decision

The JPO Appeal Board reversed the refusal and granted registration for “BUZZ Pay”, finding that the two marks are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion.

(1) Integrated Perception in the Payment Sector

Although “Pay” literally means payment or expenditure, the Board recognized that the combination format of “[Brand] + Pay” (e.g., Yucho Pay, Bank Pay, au PAY, Amazon Pay, Merpay, PayPay, Rakuten Pay) is widely used as a standard service name in the cashless payment industry.

Because consumers are familiar with this naming structure, they naturally perceive “BUZZ Pay” in its entirety as an indivisible, unitary trademark, rather than focusing solely on “BUZZ”.

(2) Comparison of Similarity

  • Appearance (Visual): “BUZZ Pay” is a pure word mark, whereas the cited mark contains prominent graphical elements (hexagonal frames and a lightning symbol). The presence of “Pay” also creates a clear visual difference.
  • Pronunciation (Phonetic): “BUZZ Pay” is pronounced as “Ba-zu-pei” (4 syllables in Japanese), whereas the cited mark is pronounced as “Ba-zu” (2 syllables). The sound of “Pay” ensures clear phonetic distinction.
  • Concept (Conceptual): “BUZZ Pay” is recognized as a coined, unitary mark that conveys no specific conceptual meaning as a whole. Conversely, the cited mark evokes the dictionary definition of the English word “buzz” (humming or buzzing sound).

Based on the above findings, the Appeal Board observed that “BUZZ Pay” cannot be dissected into “BUZZ”. Viewed as a whole, it clearly differs from the cited mark in appearance, sound, and concept. Therefore, even if the services in question are deemed similar, the applied mark should not be rejected in relation to the cited mark based on Article 4(1)(xi).

“HARIBOW” vs. “HARIBO” – German Candy Giant Fails to Block Similar Mark in Class 41

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by HARIBO Holding GmbH & Co. KG against TM Reg. No. 6904890 for wordmark “HARIBOW” in Class 41 despite finding a high degree of visual and phonetic similarity with their famous brand “HARIBO” for gummy candy.
[Opposition case no. 2025-900106, decided on July 10, 2026]

HARIBOW

The contested mark, “HARIBOW” (Reg. No. 6904890), written in standard block letters, was filed on August 8, 2024, and registered on March 6, 2025 for use on various entertainment and educational services in Class 41, including:

Providing images via the internet, movie showing/production/distribution, providing music via the internet, organization of sports events, seminars, video production, operating sound/video studios, and related entertainment services.

Opposition by HARIBO

On May 13, 2025, HARIBO Holding GmbH & Co. KG, a world-famous confectionery company founded in Germany in 1920, filed an opposition claiming that “HARIBOW” should be canceled under Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japanese Trademark Law.

HARIBO argued that the registration creates a likelihood of confusion regarding the commercial source of services, given the immense global and domestic reputation of its cited trademark “HARIBO”.

JPO Decision

The JPO Board of Opposition dismissed the opposition and decided to maintain the registration of “HARIBOW”, citing the following reasons:

1. Fame of the Cited Mark (“HARIBO”)

While the JPO acknowledged that HARIBO gummies have been sold in Japan since around 1985 and gained traction around 2021 through award-winning TV commercials, it held that the mark was not widely recognized among Japanese consumers at the time of filing and registration.

  • Lack of Historical Evidence: The opponent failed to submit objective evidence demonstrating continuous sales volume, store numbers, or market share in Japan between 2000 and 2024.
  • Brief Advertising History: Promotional activities were mostly limited to a TV commercial campaign in 2021, and the Japanese subsidiary was only established in 2023—shortly before the contested mark’s filing date.
  • Niche Product Category: HARIBO’s mark is used solely for gummy candy (a single product category) rather than a broad range of consumer goods.

2. Similarity of the Marks

The JPO determined that the degree of similarity between “HARIBOW” and “HARIBO” is HIGH.

  • Visuals: Both marks share the identical first six letters (“HARIBO”), differing only in the trailing letter “W”.
  • Pronunciation: Both generate the primary pronunciation “HA-RI-BOH”, making them phonetically confusing when spoken sequentially.

3. Relatedness of Goods/Services & Likelihood of Confusion

Despite the high similarity between the marks, the JPO concluded there is NO likelihood of confusion.

  • Unrelated Industries: “HARIBO” is used for gummy candies (Class 30), whereas “HARIBOW” covers Class 41 entertainment services. The trade channels, manufacturing processes, and target users are fundamentally distinct.
  • Even if gummy candies are sold at cinemas or entertainment venues, the JPO found no functional or economic connection between confectionery sales and entertainment service providers.
  • Since “HARIBO” was not proven to be broadly well-known across general industries, consumers would not associate “HARIBOW” in Class 41 with the German confectionery brand.