投稿者: Masaki MIKAMI

MONSTER STRIKE vs MONSTER ENERGY

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not decide in favour of Monster Energy Company in its opposition to Defensive Mark Reg. No. 5673517 for the word mark “MONSTER STRIKE” in Classes 29, 30, and 32.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900135, decided on November 4, 2025]

MONSTER STRIKE

Monster Strike, a popular mobile “slingshot hunting RPG” developed by the Japanese company Mixi, is famous for its simple pull-and-release gameplay, deep co-op mode for up to four players, frequent collaborations, and immense revenue. Monster Strike essentially saved Mixi’s social network legacy, becoming a cultural phenomenon in Japan and generating billions in revenue while fostering family communication.

https://www.monster-strike.com/

Since 2014, Mixi has owned trademark registration for the word mark “MONSTER STRIKE” in Classes 9 and 41 in connection with game programs [TM Reg no. 5673517].

On March 29, 2021, Mixi filed a defensive mark application for the mark to expand the scope of protection in Classes 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, and 33, including beverages [TM Application no. 2021-37152].

Defensive mark

Article 64 of the Japan Trademark Law provides the requirements for defensive mark registration.

“Where a registered trademark is well known among consumers as an indicator of the designated goods or service in connection with the owner’s business and confusion is likely if the mark is to be used on dissimilar goods or services by a third party, the owner is entitled to obtain a defensive mark registration for the same mark in connection with such goods or services.”

A trademark can be registered as a defensive mark for dissimilar goods or services not covered by the original registration if the owner can demonstrate that the mark has gained significant prestige for the goods or services for which it has been used. This is because relevant consumers are likely to confuse the source of the goods or services if they are remotely associated with or dissimilar to those in the original registration due to the substantial reputation of the mark.

It is noteworthy that the JPO does not examine whether a defensive mark may confuse earlier marks that have been registered on the goods and services designated in the defensive mark application.

The JPO granted registration of the mark MONSTER STRIKLE in Classes 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, and 33 as a defensive mark on March 24, 2023, and published it for a post-grant opposition on April 3, 2024.

Subsequently, Monster Energy Company filed an opposition against the defensive mark registration, claiming cancellation for goods, inter alia, beverages, in Classes 29, 30, and 33, in contravention of Article 64.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that “MONSTER STRIKE” has been widely recognised among not only consumers for game programs designated under the original registration, but also relevant consumers unrelated to the game industry.

The Board noted a trade practice that, in general, there are a lot of goods, including food and beverages, distributed bearing well-known contents and characters in collaboration with other suppliers. Bearing this in mind, it is reasonable to find that the contested goods are to some extent associated with the goods and services in the original registration.

Therefore, where the contested goods bearing the term “MONSTER STRIKE” are placed in the market by a third party, relevant consumers are likely to consider that the goods originate from Mixi or economically linked undertakings, and thus confuse the source accordingly.

The opponent claimed their substantial use of the mark “MONSTER” on the energy drink. However, such facts are irrelevant to evaluate the likelihood of confusion stipulated under Article 64(1).

Based on the above findings, the JPO dismissed the opposition and declared registration of the defensive mark as the status quo.

Japan IP High Court reversed JPO decision regarding similarity between COSME MUSEUM and Cosmetic Museum

Posted on

On November 17, 2025, the Japan IP High Court handed down a ruling to disaffirm the JPO Invalidation Board’s decision regarding similarity between COSME MUSEUM in Class 35 for retail services for cosmetics and Cosmetic Museum in Class 3 for cosmetics.
[Court case no. Reiwa6(Gyo-ke)10104, decided on November 17, 2025]

COSME MUSEUM

The contested mark, consisting of the word “COSME MUSEUM” in a plain letter, was filed with the JPO on February 24, 2023. It designates various services classified in class 35, including retail or wholesale services for cosmetics (TM App no. 2023-18992).

The applicant owns the domain “cosme-museum.com” and uses the contested mark on the domain’s web pages.

https://cosme-museum.com/

The JPO examiner granted registration of the contested mark on August 9, 2023, without issuing a notice of refusal. Upon payment of the statutory registration fee, the mark was registered on October 19, 2023 [TM Reg no. 6746429].

Cosmetic Museum

MOMOTANIJUNTENKAN Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application for the wordmark “Cosmetic Museum” in standard character with the JPO on February 16, 2023 (8 days prior to the contested mark) for use on breath freshening preparations, deodorants for animals, soaps and detergents, dentifrices, bath preparations, not for medical purposes, perfumes and flavor materials, incense, false nails, false eyelashes, and cosmetics in class 3 (TM App no. 2023-16082) to secure online use of the mark in connection with cosmetics on its websites under the domain “cosmeticmuseum.jp”.

https://cosmeticmuseum.jp/shop

The JPO registered the earlier mark on July 13, 2023 (3 months prior to the contested mark) [TM Reg no. 6717335].

On March 28, 2024, five months after the registration of the contested mark, MOMOTANIJUNTENKAN filed an invalidation petition with the JPO requesting that the contested mark be retroactively annulled based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

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

JPO decision

The JPO Invalidation Board found the contested mark “COSME MUSEUM” is dissimilar to the cited mark “Cosme Museum” by stating that:

Firstly, comparing the appearance of the contested mark and the cited mark, there are visual distinctions in the presence or absence of the term “tic”, and the upper-case letters or lower-case letters consisting of the respective mark. Therefore, the Board has a reason to believe that two marks are clearly distinguishable, and unlikely to cause confusion in appearance.

Secondly, the pronunciation of the contested mark and that of the cited mark clearly differ in the presence or absence of a “tic” sound in the middle, and are clearly audible.

Thirdly, the two marks do not convey any particular meaning at all. In this regard, they remain conceptually neutral.

Based on the foregoing, the contested mark and the cited mark are unlikely to cause confusion due to a low degree of similarity in appearance and pronunciation. Taking a global view of the impression, memory, and association that the relevant consumers will perceive from the appearance, sound and concept of the marks, the Board has a reason to believe that the contested mark “COSME MUSEUM” should be found dissimilar to the earlier mark “Cosmetic Museum” and unlikely to cause confusion.”

On December 12, 2024, MOMOTANIJUNTENKAN filed a lawsuit with the IP High Court, claiming that the court should annul the contested decision because the JPO erroneously applied Article 4(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law and thus found “COSME MUSEUM” and “Cosmetic Museum” similar.

IP High Court ruling

The court noted that the term “COSME” is defined as an abbreviation for cosmetics in Japanese dictionaries and is widely used in the industry to refer to cosmetics. Thus, relevant consumers would associate the term with cosmetics, and the contested mark will convey the meaning of a museum for cosmetics as a whole.

Although the term “COSME” is recognized as an abbreviation for “cosmetics” or “cosmetic”, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the terms have been used in trade practice to indicate different sources without causing confusion. Bearing this in mind, the court found that the two marks do not differ significantly in appearance.

Similarly, the court observed that the aural difference between “COSME” and “cosmetic” would be negligible.

Since both marks have the same meaning, it is reasonable to believe that relevant consumers may confuse the source of the contested mark with the earlier mark when used in connection with retail services for cosmetics.

Based on the foregoing, the court declared the annulment of the contested decision because the JPO errored in applying Article 4(1)(xi) and finding the relevant facts.

Trademark dispute: SUNRISE vs KILLER SUNRISE

Posted on

In a recent trademark dispute between “SUNRISE” and “KILLER SUNRISE”, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) found both marks dissimilar and non-confusable for wines and alcoholic beverages.
[Opposition case no. 2025-900010, decided on November 4, 2025]

KILLER SUNRISE

Monster Brewing LLC filed a trademark application for the word mark “KILLER SUNRISE” in standard character with the JPO for use on alcoholic beverages, except beer of Class 33 on June 7, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-61229].

https://beastunleashed.com/beast-unleashed/killer-sunrise/

The JPO examiner, without raising any grounds for refusal, granted registration of the mark on October 16, 2024. Subsequently, it was registered on November 6, 2024, and published in the JPO official gazette on November 14, 2024, for a post-grant opposition.

Opposition by Viña Concha y Toro

On January 8, 2025, Viña Concha y Toro S.A., the main Latin American wine producer, filed an opposition against the mark “KILLER SUNRISE” by citing their earlier TM Reg no. 4208026 for the word mark “SUNRISE” that has been used on Chilean wine.

Viña Concha y Toro argued that the cited mark has become famous to indicate the origin of their Chilean wines as a result of extensive use for three decades.

Relevant consumers will recognise the contested mark be composed of “KILLER” and “SUNRISE” in appearance and concept. As the term “KILLER” has an adjective meaning of ‘strikingly impressive or effective’ that appears to be less distinctive, the literal element “SUNRISE” would be a dominant portion of the contested mark. Since the dominant portion is identical to the cited mark, the contested mark should be considered similar to the cited mark. In view of a high degree of similarity between the marks and a highly-recognised “SUNRISE” Chilean wine, relevant consumers and traders would confuse the goods in question with the contested mark comes from the same undertaking or from an economically linked undertaking. Accordingly, the contested mark should be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board observed that the evidence shows the cited mark was used in connection with wine and its advertising. However, it did not demonstrate the sales amount, market share, and advertising expenditure of the SUNRISE wine. Based on this finding, the Board noted that the evidence was insufficient and unpersuasive to demonstrate a high degree of recognition and reputation for the cited mark, “SUNRISE”.

Regarding the similarity of the marks, the Board stated that the marks are distinguishable in appearance and sound due to the presence of the term “KILLER.” The contested mark does not convey any specific meaning. Meanwhile, the cited mark has a concept of ‘the apparent rising of the sun above the horizon.’ Therefore, the conceptual comparison does not impact the finding of similarity between the marks.

Accordingly, the Board has a reason to believe that the contested mark is dissimilar to the cited mark.

Given that the cited mark is not famous, according to the evidence, and the low degree of similarity between the marks, relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse the source of goods in question bearing the contested mark with the cited mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed the opposition entirely and found that the contested mark should not be subject to cancellation under Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

IP High Court ruling: STARBUCKS vs STARBOSS

Posted on

The Japan IP High Court did not side with Starbucks Corporation in a trademark dispute between “STARBUCKS” and “STARBOSS” and affirmed the JPO decision that found “STARBOSS” dissimilar to, and less likelihood of confusion with “STARBUCKS when used on beverages.
[Court case no. Reiwa7(Gyo-ke)10036, ruled on October 20, 2025]

STARBOSS

Kenkoman Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application for a wordmark “STARBOSS” in standard character for use on beer, carbonated drinks [refreshing beverages], fruit juices, vegetable juices [beverages], extracts of hops for making beer, whey beverages in class 32 with the JPO on January 25, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-13707).

The JPO examiner granted registration of the applied mark on June 24, 2022, without issuing any office action (TM Reg no. 6595964).

The applicant promotes energy drinks bearing the applied mark.

https://kenkoman.com/products/starboss-energy-drink-240ml-per-bottle

JPO decision against the invalidation filed by Starbucks

Starbucks Corporation requested a declaration of invalidity against the applied mark with the JPO in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law on April 28, 2023.

Starbucks argued that the mark “STARBOSS” is confusingly similar to the earlier mark “STARBUCKS” that has been consecutively registered in class 32 since 1989 because the difference of the letter, “OS” and “UCK” in the middle of respective marks, would not overwhelm the entire similarity in appearance and concept.

Besides, consumers of the goods in question mostly overlap with coffee shop. Taking into consideration a remarkable degree of popularity and reputation of the mark “STARBUCKS” among the general public in Japan, relevant consumers at the sight of beverages bearing the contested mark would pay much attention to the prefix portion starting with “STARB” and associate it with STARBUCKS, and thus consider the goods originating from a business entity economically or systematically connected with Starbucks.

However, the JPO Invalidation Board did not question a high degree of recognition of the mark “STARBUCKS” to indicate a source of coffee chain managed by Starbucks.

In the meantime, the Board found both marks dissimilar by stating that:

“Comparing with appearance, both marks start with “STARB” and end with “S”. But there is a difference between the letters “OS” and “UCK” in the middle of respective mark. This difference would have a material effect on the visual impression of two marks that consist of eight or nine alphabet letters. Thus, both marks are clearly distinguishable in appearance.

Aurally, relevant consumers can distinguish “STARBOSS” from “STURBUCKS” because the enunciation of “BO” and “BUCK” in the middle of respective marks is pronounced in a strong tone and accordingly has a material impact on the overall sound.

A conceptual comparison is neutral as neither “STARBOSS” nor “STARBUCKS” has any clear meaning.

Based on the above findings, the Board has a reason to believe that the contested mark “STARBOSS” is dissimilar to the mark “STARBUCKS” by considering the impression, memory, and association conveyed to the consumers overall.”

Given the low degree of similarity between “STARBOSS” and “STARBUCKS”, relevant consumers with ordinary care are unlikely to confuse a source of goods in question bearing the contested mark with Starbucks or any business entity economically or systematically connected with the claimant.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the invalidation action by Starbucks on December 17, 2024.

Starbucks filed an appeal to the IP High Court and argued that the contested mark is similar to the earlier mark “STARBUCKS”, and relevant consumers are likely to confuse the source of goods in question with Starbucks.

IP High Court Ruling

In the court decision dated October 20, 2025, the IP High Court stated as follows.

1. Similarity of the marks

– Visual comparison

Though both marks start with the letters “STARB” and end with “S” in common, they contain different letters ‘OS’ and “UCK” around the middle. Given their relatively short configuration of eight or nine alphabet letters, this difference enables the marks to be distinguishable. Considering that the letters of both marks are inextricably combined as a whole, and thus the relevant consumers would never consider the “STARB” portion as a dominant element for identifying the source of goods bearing the contested mark.

– Aural comparison

Though both marks have the same sound starting with “star” and ending with “su” in common, their pronunciations differ in the sound of ‘bo’ and “back” around the middle. Due to the difference, both sounds are sufficiently distinguishable, given a relatively short sound configuration.

– Conceptual comparison

The cited mark gives rise to a meaning of “Starbucks coffee chain.” Since the contested mark does not have any specific meaning, both marks are easily distinguishable in concept. Furthermore, there is no circumstantial evidence to support that relevant consumers would associate the terms beginning with “STARB” with Starbucks or their business. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to find that the literal portion “STARB” of the contested mark causes a conceptual connection with Starbucks.

2. Likelihood of confusion

Based on the low degree of similarity between “STARBOSS” and “STARBUCKS”, and the lack of evidence to demonstrate actual use of a mark starting with “STARB” other than “STARBUCKS” by Plaintiff, from the provided evidence at record, the court found no rational basis to believe that relevant consumers confuse the origin of goods in question bearing the contested mark with Starbucks.

JPO found “@knowledge” dissimilar to “KNOWLEDGE”

Posted on

In an administrative appeal, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s rejection of TM App no. 2024-8041 for the mark “@knowledge” due to dissimilarity between “@knowledge” and “KNOWLEDGE”.
[Appeal case no. 2024-19449, decided on October 21, 2025]

@knowledge

Property Data Bank, Inc. filed a trademark application with the JPO for the mark “@knowledge” (see below) in connection with several services in Classes 35, 36, and 42, including “Business management analysis or business consultancy; Marketing research; Providing information concerning commercial sales”, “Management of buildings and real estate; Agency services for the leasing or rental of buildings and real estate”, “Computer software design, computer programming, or maintenance of computer software; Technological advice relating to computers, automobiles and industrial machines” on January 29, 2024. [TM App no. 2024-8041]

KNOWLEDGE

On July 24,2024, the JPO examiner issued a refusal notice based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law, citing senior TM Reg nos. 4522262, 4697986, and 5033530 for the wordmark “KNOWLEDGE” in Classes 35, 41, and 42.

The examiner noted that the mark consists of the “@” symbol with circle decorations and the term “knowledge.” There is no visual or conceptual connection between the symbol and the term, so they can’t be considered inextricable. Since the term “knowledge” is identical to the cited marks, it is confusingly similar to them as a whole.

The applicant counterargued that the mark should be taken as a whole and thus be deemed dissimilar from the cited marks from an aural, visual, and conceptual point of view due to the presence of the @ symbol. However, the examiner decided to reject the trademark application under the aforementioned article on October 30, 2024.

On December 4, 2024, the applicant filed an appeal and requested the cancellation of the examiner’s rejection.

JPO Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board considered the fact that “@” is widely recognized as a symbol representing “unit price” or “email address.” Nowadays, it is used commercially in trade as part of a company, website, or business name in conjunction with various words placed afterward.

Under these circumstances, consumers are unlikely to dissect the mark “@knowledge” into its individual parts. Rather, they will consider it as a whole. The sound of the mark is not so redundant that consumers cannot pronounce it as a whole. Additionally, there is no reason to conclude that the literal element “knowledge” alone identifies the source of the services in question.

Based on these findings, the Board concluded that the examiner erred in applying Article 4(1)(xi) by dissecting the mark into two parts. Consequently, the Board canceled the rejection and granted registration of the mark due to its dissimilarity to the cited marks.

YONEX Scored Win in Registering Color mark

Posted on

On October 21, 2025, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) granted registration of a color mark that consists of blue and green colors, filed by Yonex Co., Ltd. to use on badminton shuttlecocks by finding acquired distinctiveness of the color combination.
[Appeal case no. 2022-17481]

YONEX Color Mark

Yonex Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application with the Japan Patent Office on September 6, 2019, for a mark that consists of a combination of blue (Pantone 2935C) and green (Pantone 355C) (color ratio 50%:50%), designating “sports equipment; badminton equipment” and other goods in Class 28 [TM App no. 2019-118815].

Rejection by JPO examiner

On July 27, 2022, the JPO examiner rejected the mark under Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law, due to a lack of inherent distinctive character. Furthermore, while acknowledging that a certain number of traders and consumers recognize the color combination perse as an indicator of the applicant’s goods in view of the applicant’s extensive use of the mark on badminton shuttlecocks for years, and its leading market share, the examiner had an opinion that a significant number of people do not recognize it as a source indicator to distinguish from others. Accordingly, the examiner concluded that the mark does not satisfy the requirements to apply Article 3(2) since the applicant failed to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness of the mark in relation to the goods in question.

Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on November 1, 2022, and then restricted the designated goods to “Shuttlecocks” in Class 28.

JPO Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board observed that the evidence submitted by the applicant would sufficiently demonstrate that the color combination has played a role in identifying the specific source of Shuttlecocks by taking into account the following facts.

  1. The mark has been used continuously for over 48 years, since at least 1976, on Yonex Badminton shuttlecocks. The color combination appears on the applicant’s website, in product catalogs, internet articles, magazines, newspapers, and television programs. The shuttlecocks bearing the mark have been officially used at numerous international badminton tournaments, including the Olympic Games and World Championships.
  2. Yonex shuttlecocks ranked first in the domestic market for 11 consecutive years from 2009 to 2019, with a market share of approximately 70% to 80% during that period.
  3. According to survey results targeting 1,053 men and women aged 15 to 59 who currently play or have played badminton or tennis, 57.87% of the respondents who have played both tennis (including soft tennis) and badminton could associate the color combination with the applicant in the answer to an open or closed (multiple choice) question. For those who have experienced badminton, but not tennis, 56.59% could associate it with the applicant in either question.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found that the examiner erred in applying Article 3(2), and thus decided to register the color combination as a trademark.

JPO Rejected 3D shape of KitKat 2 Finger Mini Chocolate Wafers as Trademark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) Appeal Board upheld the examiner’s decision to reject TM App no. 2020-121513 for the 3D shape of Nestle’s KitKat 2 Finger Mini Chocolate Wafers, due to a lack of inherent and acquired distinctiveness.
[Appeal case no. 2024-75, decided on September 29, 2025]

KitKat 2 Finger Mini Chocolate Wafers

Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. filed a trademark application for the 3D shape of KitKat 2 Finger Mini Chocolate Wafers (see below) in connection with chocolate confections (Cl. 30) with the JPO on October 1, 2020. [TM App no. 2020-121513]

The JPO examiner gave Nestle a notice of grounds for refusal on August 30, 2021, based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law due to a lack of inherent distinctiveness.

As a response, Nestle argued not only the inherent distinctiveness of the 3D shape, but also acquired distinctiveness since the shape has been used since 2011 on their world-famous chocolate wafers “KitKat 2 Finger Mini”. To demonstrate the acquired distinctiveness, Nestle conducted market research targeting 1,001 men and women aged 15 to 64 residing in Tokyo or Osaka, or these neighboring areas, and who have purchased and eaten chocolate confections more than once a month. 85% of respondents, when shown the 3D shape of the KitKat 2 Finger Mini chocolate wafers without any accompanying text, identified it as “KitKat” in response to an open-ended question.

However, the examiner considered the market research biased by excluding children aged under 15 and over 65, who are unquestionably relevant consumers, and limiting respondents who reside in the Tokyo or Osaka areas and have purchased and eaten chocolate confections more than once a month.

On October 2, 2023, the examiner decided to reject the mark based on Article 3(1)(iii), and noted that the evidence is insufficient to find 3D shape perse has already played a role in identifying the source of the KitKat 2 Finger Chocolate Wafers.

To contest, Nestle filed an appeal with the JPO on January 4, 2024.

Subsequently, Nestle conducted 2nd market research targeting 1,080 men and women aged 15 to 99 without restricting their residence and preference to chocolate confections. The result shows that 72.9% of respondents, when shown the 3D shape of the KitKat 2 Finger Mini chocolate wafers without any accompanying text, identified it as “KitKat” in response to an open-ended question.

JPO Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board recognized the high popularity and recognition of KitKats sold in Japan since 1973, which holds a 17% market share — the top ranking in Japan. Annual sales exceeded 27 billion JPY in 2019.

In the meantime, the Board questioned whether the applied 3D shape perse has acquired distinctiveness in connection with the KitKat 2 Finger Mini chocolate wafers by stating that:

  1. KitKats come in various shapes, such as spherical or stick-shaped, as well as the ‘2 Finger Mini’. Therefore, the applied 3D shape would not be identical to all KitKat chocolates.
  2. KitKats are sold in individually wrapped pieces that are then packed in boxes or bags for display and sale. This suggests that the 3D shape would not be distinctive enough to catch consumers’ attention at the time of purchase.
  3. Of the sixty KitKats, only two represent an image of the 3D mark on their packaging.
  4. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that relevant consumers can securely identify the source of KitKats by relying solely on the 3D mark in question.
  5. Advertising for KitKats has not prominently featured the 3D shape to the extent that it could be perceived as a source indicator by consumers. Even if market research shows that many consumers associate the 3D shape with KitKats, it cannot be concluded that consumers distinguish KitKats based solely on the shape of the goods.

Based on the above findings, the JPO upheld the examiner’s decision, and declared rejection of the 3D shape due to a lack of inherent and acquired distinctiveness.

The JPO’s decision is appealable until February 11, 2026.

ALVIERO MARTINI Defeated Over World Map Mark Dispute

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an invalidation claim by ALVIERO MARTINI S.p.A., against TM Reg no. 6320074, which features an old-world map design, due to its dissimilarity and less likelihood of confusion with the claimant’s 1A CLASSE “GEO MAP” mark.
[Invalidation case no. 2024-890008, decided on September 18, 2025]

Japan TM Reg no. 6320074

Two Korean individuals filed a trademark application with the JPO for a device mark depicting an old-world map (see below) in relation to bags and other leather goods of Class 18 on December 24, 2019 [TM App no. 2019-165453].

Without raising any ground of refusal, the JPO examiner granted registration of the mark on December 24, 2020.

Invalidation action by Alviero Martini

ALVIERO MARTINI S.p.A., known as an Italian heritage brand, Alviero Martini 1A Classe, filed an invalidation action with the JPO on February 13, 2024, and claimed invalidation of TM Reg no. 6320074 in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier IR no. 982100 of the world map mark in Class 18.

ALVIERO MARTINI argued the contested mark is confusingly similar to the cited mark that has been widely recognized among relevant consumers to identify a source of Alviero Martini 1A CLASSE brand.

The claimant also pointed out the fact that the applicant applied for other mark containing the term “PRIMA CLASSE” (see below). Given a high degree of resemblance between the marks and close relatedness between the goods in question and the claimant’s fashion business, it is presumed that the applicant had maliciously filed the contested mark with an intention to free-ride goodwill on the cited mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Invalidation Board noted the fact that the cited mark has been used in a manner that depicts only a portion of the world map on the claimant’s goods. The produced evidence does not suggest that the cited mark is ever used in its entirety as a source indicator.

Therefore, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the cited mark has acquired a certain degree of recognition in Japan and other jurisdictions.

Regarding the similarity of the marks, the Board stated, “Although they both consist of a device that represents a world map in common, the overall impressions differ significantly due to the different arrangement of continents, the presence of country and ocean names, and sailing ships. Therefore, the contested mark is visually dissimilar to the cited mark”, and “the coincidence in the graphic element representing world map is not sufficient to counteract or outbalance these visual differences.”

Based on the foregoing, the Board found that the marks are dissimilar and relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse the source of the goods in question bearing the contested mark with the cited owner.

Given the lack of persuasive evidence demonstrating a high recognition of the cited mark, it is unclear whether the applicant has a malicious intent vulnerable to invalidation.

CHEMICAN vs CHEMI-CON

Posted on

In a trademark opposition against Japan TM Reg no. 6894070 “Chemican” in Class 9, which disputed the similarity and a likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark “CHEMI-CON”, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not sustain the opposition due to the marks’ low degree of similarity even though the earlier mark to be famous in relation to aluminum electrolytic capacitors.
[Opposition case no. 2025-900082, decided on September 11, 2025]

CHEMICAN

Chemican, Inc. filed a trademark application for wordmark “Chemican” in standard character for use on various electrical and electronic goods, including capacitors of Class 9 with the JPO on December 9, 2024. [TM App no. 2024-132131]

Immediately after the filing, the applicant requested for accelerated examination.

Without raising any grounds for refusal, the JPO examiner granted protection of the mark on February 3, 2025. The mark “Chemican” was subsequently registered on February 6, 2025, and published for post-grant opposition on February 17.

Opposition by Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation

Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation, the largest manufacturer and supplier of aluminum electrolytic capacitors, has owned trademark registrations for the mark “CHEMI-CON” in Class 9 since 1984.

On April 16, 2025, Nippon Chemi-Con filed an opposition, disputing that the contested mark should be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Nippon Chemi-Con allegedly argued that the cited mark “CHEMI-CON” has become famous among relevant consumers of the goods in question, indicating a source of their aluminum electrolytic capacitors, which hold a top market share worldwide. The contested mark “Chemican” is confusingly similar to the cited mark “CHEMI-CON” in appearance and sound.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that the cited mark has become famous as an indicator of the claimant’s aluminum electrolytic capacitors, considering the evidence and the claimant’s top-ranked global market share.  

However, the Board questioned the similarity of the marks by stating that:

  1. Although both marks have the initial element “Chemi” and “CHEMI” in common, there are several differences: (i) a hyphen; (ii) “a” in “can” and “O” in “CON”; and (iii) the contested mark consists of lowercase letters except for the initial letter “C”, whereas the cited mark is entirely uppercase. Moreover, the cited mark can be recognized as a combination of the familiar English word “CHEMI,” meaning “chemical,” and the term “CON” via a hyphen. Therefore, the cited mark gives a different commercial impression than the contested mark. Accordingly, the two marks are clearly distinguishable in appearance.
  2. The two marks’ pronunciations differ in the third sound, with “ka” and “ko,” respectively. Bearing in mind that these sounds come just before the weak sound “n” at the end and  that the overall sound structure consists of only four syllables, the two marks differ significantly in sound and appearance. Thus, the overall intonation and impression of these marks differ significantly, enabling clear distinction.
  3. A conceptual comparison is neutral, as neither mark has a clear meaning.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found that the contested mark is dissimilar to the cited mark, so it should not be vulnerable to cancellation based on Article 4(1)(xi).

Due to the low degree of similarity between the marks, the Board stated that relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse the source of the goods at question bearing the contested mark with the claimant, even if the cited mark is famous among consumers. For this reason, the Board dismissed the entire opposition.

Trademark Dispute: FLOW3D vs Flow360

Posted on

In a trademark dispute over the similarity between “FLOW3D” and “Flow360,” the Japan Patent Office (JPO) assessed the respective mark in its entirety and found them to be dissimilar even though they share the first word.
[Opposition case no. 2025-900008, decided on September 2, 2025]

Flow360

Flex Compute Incorporated, a US company, filed a trademark application of wordmark “Flow360” in standard character for use on SaaS in Class 42 with the JPO on February 8, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-12572].

The JPO examiner did not raise any refusal to the mark and granted protection on September 18, 2024. Upon payment of statutory registration fee, the mark was registered on October 29, 2024 [TM Reg no. 6859262], and published for a post-grant opposition on November 7, 2024.

FLOW3D

Flow Science Incorporated, an owner of earlier TM Reg no. 4284043 for wordmark consisting of “FLOW3D” and its Japanese transliteration arranged in two lines (see below) on computer programs in Class 9, filed an opposition against the mark “Flow360” on January 7, 2025, and claimed its cancellation in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing the mark “FLOW3D.”

In the opposition brief, the claimant argued that both “360” and “3D” are low in distinctiveness. Therefore, the first word “FLOW” plays a dominant role in identifying the source of the goods and services in question, and relevant consumers are likely to be misled or confused because of the common word.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that the contested mark was not cancelled based on Article 4(1)(xi) by stating as follows.

The Board noted that there is no reasonable ground to find that the elements “360” and “3D” are immediately perceived as indicating the nature or quality of the goods and services in question. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to consider the term “FLOW” as a dominant element when comparing the marks in accordance with the claimant’s assertion.

The appearance and pronunciation of the contested mark and the cited mark are distinguishable due to a clear difference in constituent characters and sound. A conceptual comparison is neutral, as neither the contested mark nor the cited mark has any clear meaning.

Therefore, considering the overall commercial impressions, recollections, and associations that respective marks as a whole give to relevant traders and consumers through appearance, pronunciation, and concept, both marks should be regarded as dissimilar and distinguishable, with no likelihood of confusion.