投稿者: Masaki MIKAMI

Tips to Pass the JPO Trademark Registration Exam in 2 months

Posted on

“JPO Status Report 2020” reveals more applicants make use of the “Accelerated Examination” in order to obtain an earlier trademark registration.

According to the latest report, the number of requests for accelerated examination in 2019 was 8,110, which increased by 54% than the previous year.

Accelerated Trademark Examination

The accelerated examination has enabled the shortening trademark examination period to 1.7 months on average. Being that it takes 7.9 months or longer for the JPO to notify the examination result at present, accelerated examination must be appealing to an applicant who wants their brand to be registered as early as possible.

The accelerated examination is available in three cases.

[Case 1]

An applicant is in use of or likely to use an applied mark on more than one of the goods/services in the designation, and in urgent need of registration.

To meet an urgent need requirement, the applicant is required to demonstrate; (i) unauthorized third party uses an applied mark, (ii) any third party request a license to use the applied mark, (iii) any third-party demand applicant to cease use of the applied mark, or (iv) applicant filed the identical mark to a foreign country.

[Case 2]

An applicant is in use of or likely to use an applied mark on every goods/service in the designation.

[Case 3]

An applicant is in use of or likely to use an applied mark on more than one of goods/services in the designation, and the description of goods/services are all in conformity with that listed in the Examination guidelines for similar goods and services.

Besides, (v) where the applicant seeks to apply for international registration of trademark identical with the applied mark through the Madrid Protocol, it is also admitted meeting an urgent need requirement for Case 1.

Less than 1.5% Success Rate for Getting Color Mark Registration in Japan

Posted on

Japan opened the gate to Non-Traditional trademark, namely, color, sound, position, motion, hologram, in April 2015. It seems true that, beyond expectation, JPO has a significantly high hurdle to clear.

543 applications for color marks were filed with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) as of now (Nov 15, 2020). Among them, only 8 color marks are allowed for registration.

1. Tombow Pencil “MONO” (stationery)
2. Seven-Eleven (convenience store)
3. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group (financial service)
4. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group (financial service)
5. Mitsubishi Pencil “UNI” (pencil)
6. Mitsubishi Pencil “HI-UNI” (pencil)
7. Family Mart (convenience store)
8. UCC Ueshima Coffee (canned coffee)

All the registered color marks consist of more than two colors. JPO has yet to register a single case of color per se.

Most single-color marks are rejected due to a lack of distinctiveness and failure to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness. Surprisingly, 492 applications (90.6%) are already rejected or voluntarily withdrawn by the applicant.

Red Bull was unsuccessful in registering a combination of dark blue and silver on energy drinks in class 32.

Hermes also failed to register a three-color combination over various goods in class 14, 18, and 25.

43 applications are in review with the JPO as of now. Remarkably, Christian Louboutin fights for the appeal against the refusal of its iconic red-sole.

Google’s Trademark Battle over Street View

Posted on

The Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Google LLC and decided to cancel trademark registration no. 6086044 for word mark “STREET VIEW MODEL (SVM)” due to a likelihood of confusion with Google’s “STREET VIEW”.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900391, Gazette issued on September 25, 2020]

Opposed mark

A Japanese individual filed a trademark application for word mark “STREET VIEW MODEL (SVM)” written in Japanese Katakana character (see below) by designating the service of ‘providing online non-downloadable videos and photographs’ in class 41 with the JPO on December 27, 2017.

The opposed mark was registered and published for opposition on October 30, 2018.

Google “Street View”

On December 28, 2018, Google LLC filed an opposition against “STREET VIEW MODEL (SVM)” and argued that the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) and (xix) of the Trademark Law based on its owned senior registration for the STREET VIEW mark (IR no. 12138361) in class 9 and 42 because both marks resemble and relevant consumers would confuse or associate the opposed mark, containing “STREET VIEW” famous for the service featured on Google map enabling to provide panoramic 360-degree views from the designated street, with the opponent when used on the designated service in question.

IR no. 12138361

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

Board Decision

The Board did not question the famousness of the STREET VIEW mark as a source indicator of Google’s service for providing digital images on a map at the time of both initial filing and registration of the opposed mark.

In the assessment of similarity between the marks, the Board found that the average consumers would likely pay considerable attention to the term “STREET VIEW” of the opposed mark because of its fame. If so, a high degree of similarity exists between the opposed mark and “STREET VIEW”.

It is true that the “STREET VIEW” mark is anything but a fancy or invented word since it consists of two common English words that the relevant consumers are familiar with, however, given the designated service in question and Google “STREET VIEW” are related to providing digital images via the internet, these are supposedly purchased or consumed by the same consumers. If so, the Board considers the opponent business, and the service in question are closely associated.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that relevant traders and consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of the opposed mark when used in relation to the service (class 41) with Google or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent and thus decided cancellation in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv).

Court Case: Parallel imports of trademarked goods in Japan

Posted on

In a trademark dispute pertinent to parallel imports, on October 22, 2020, the Japan Tokyo District Court allowed the parallel import of “2UNDR” men’s underwear from Singapore into Japan.
[Court case no. Heisei30(Wa)35053]

2UNDR

Harris Williams Design Inc. (Harris), a Canadian corporation, is an owner of Japanese Trademark Registration no. 5696029 for the mark “2UNDR” over men’s underwear, clothing, and others in class 25 as well as Canadian Trademark Registration for the same mark, jointly with EYE IN THE SKY CO, Ltd., an exclusive distributor and licensee in Japan, sued Kabushiki Kaisha Bright, a Japanese company who imported and distributed 2,387 pcs of men’s underwear bearing the “2UNDR” mark as follows in Japan, for trademark infringement.

Defendant argued the goods in dispute were all purchased from a Singapore company M-Golf which was originally imported to Singapore under the license of another Canadian corporation owned by the CEO of Harris. If so, the import of the 2UNDR goods in Japan would not constitute trademark infringement and it is not prohibited the defendant from selling such goods in Japan as a parallel importer.

Parallel imports

Parallel imports involve the import and distribution of genuine trademarked goods by parties other than the trademark owner or their agent. In contrast to counterfeit products, products that are the subject of parallel imports were produced abroad with the consent of the trademark owner.

The plaintiffs contended the defendant’s act would be anything but permissible since M-Golf has been restricted under trademark license to export the licensed goods out of Singapore. Besides, when the defendant purchased the disputed goods, M-Golf was no longer an authorized distributor in Singapore. Therefore, defendant goods would never be construed the genuine products as a matter of law.

Supreme Court Ruling

In the “Fred Perry Case” decision ruled on February 27, 2003, the Japan Supreme Court established the criteria to determine whether parallel imports shall constitute trademark infringements, by relying on ‘functional theory’:

  1. Is the trademark affixed on the goods, which the alleged infringer wishes to import, by the trademark owner or with its consent in the country of export?
  2. Is the party who owns trademark right in the country of export also an owner of Japanese trademark right for the same mark or closely associated with the owner so that the trademark affixed in the country of export could indicate the same source with a registered mark in Japan?
  3. Is the owner of Japanese trademark right, directly or indirectly, effectively in control of the quality of imported goods with the trademark which is sought to be enforced so that the imported goods would be estimated virtually identical in view of quality with the goods placed on the market under the same trademark by the owner in Japan?

Given the answer to the above three tests is yes, the essential function of a trademark, namely “source indicator” and “quality assurance”, would not be harmed by virtue of parallel imports in fact. In this respect, parallel imports shall be permissible even if the defendant’s act nominally constitutes trademark infringement.

Tokyo District Court Decision

In line with the criteria, the Tokyo District Court found that answer to the first test is “yes” because the 2UNDR mark was originally affixed on the disputed goods under a license of Harris in Canada. The territorial restriction imposed on a licensee and termination of license agreement would be irrelevant to the test.

Unquestionably, the answer to the second test is “yes” since Harris is the sole owner of Japanese trademark registration and Canadian trademark registration for the 2UNDR mark. If so, both marks indicate the same source of origin as a matter of course.

As for the third test, the court could not find a reasonable ground to believe that territorial restriction is beneficial to assure the quality of men’s underwear by taking into consideration such goods would neither easily decline quality nor damage during shipment. Besides, there seems no difference in quality between the defendant’s imported goods and the plaintiff’s 2UNDR goods distributed in Japan. Therefore, the court held the case satisfies the third test as well.

Based on the foregoing, the court decided the defendant’s act to import and distribute the disputed goods in Japan would not adversely affect the essential function of the 2UNDR mark owned by plaintiffs and thus permissible as parallel imports under the Trademark Law.

Click here to read the full decision

LEGO Triumphs In ‘CATTYLEGO’ Trademark Battle at JPO

Posted on

LEGO eventually scored a win over PETSWEET CO., Ltd., a Taiwanese company, in a trademark dispute against ‘CATTYLEGO’ thanks to the JPO’s finding a likelihood of confusion with “LEGO” famous for toy brick.
[Invalidation case no. 2018-890084, Gazette issued date: September 25, 2020]

CATTY LEGO

PETSWEEY Co. (派斯威特國際有限公司), Ltd., a Taiwanese company, applied for trademark registration in Japan for the mark consisting of a word “CATTYLEGO” and rectangle device (see below) on June 15, 2016, over toy boxes and chests, dog kennels, fodder racks, pet cushions, pet house in class 20 and toys for pets in class 28.

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) registered the mark on December 2, 2016 (TM Registration no. 5902786) and published for opposition on January 10, 2017.

LEGO

LEGO Juris A/S, the world’s largest Danish toy manufacturer, filed an opposition against the mark ‘CATTYLEGO’ on the final day of a two-month duration for the opposition, and argued it shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law, but in vain. Click here to read more about the opposition.

Subsequently, LEGO lodged a trademark invalidation trial with the JPO on October 31, 2018, based on the same grounds.

JPO Decision

The Invalidation Board did not question a high degree of reputation and popularity of the LEGO trademark as a source indicator of toy brick by finding consecutive promotion of LEGO bricks in Japan for more than five decades, annual sales amounting to over 8 billion yen (Approx. USD 74 million ), its remarkable share in the sector of kids toys, and almost half of preschools in Japan have adopted the bricks for educational purpose.

Given the remarkable reputation of the LEGO mark, the Board held relevant consumers/traders at the sight of the ‘CATTYLEGO’ mark would inevitably conceive the term “LEGO” as a dominant portion. If so, both marks may give rise to a similar sound and concept pertinent to “LEGO”.

The Board also affirmed toy brick and the goods in question are closely associated in view of suppliers, commercial channels, usage, consumers.

Consequently, by taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Board found relevant consumers with an ordinary care would confuse or associate the goods in question bearing the ‘CATTYLEGO’ mark with LEGO or any entity systematically or economically connected with LEGO, and thus the mark shall be invalidated based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the trademark law.

PGA

Posted on

In a recent administrative decision, the Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) disaffirmed the examiner’s refusal and held a composite mark, consisting of words “PERFECT GEAR AGENCY” and a monogram “PGA”, is dissimilar to the senior registered word mark “PGA” owned by Professional Golf Association.
[Appeal case no. 2019-10638, Gazette issued date: September 25, 2020]

“PGA/ PERFECT GEAR AGENCY”

Disputed mark, see below, was applied for registration in relation to retail or wholesale services for various goods, e.g. foods and beverages, footwear, bags, automobiles in class 35 on January 24, 2018.

The disputed mark consists of the “PGA” monogram and the words “PERFECT GEAR AGENCY” on the right. The initial letter of the respective term is colored in red. Apparently, the monogram comes from an initial letter of each word “PERFECT”, “GEAR” and “AGENCY”.

JPO Examiner rejected the disputed mark by citing several senior trademark registrations for a wordmark “PGA” in various classes owned by Professional Golf Association.

In Japan, retail or wholesale service in respect of specific goods is deemed similar to the goods or its equivalent. For example, retail service in respect of sporting goods (class 35) and sporting goods (class 28) is deemed similar.

That being the case, the applicant filed an appeal against the refusal and contended dissimilarity of the mark.

JPO decision

The Appeal Board found that the “PGA” monogram and words “PERFECT GEAR AGENCY” can be separably seen from a visual point of view. Besides, the “PGA” monogram per se does not give rise to any specific meaning. It is unknown whether relevant Japanese consumers have been familiar with the words “PERFECT GEAR AGENCY” as a whole. If so, the words do not give rise to a specific meaning as well.

By taking account of the above, the Board pointed out the disputed mark shall be pronounced as “PERFECT GEAR AGENCY”, but has no meaning.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded the refusal shall be disaffirmed since the examiner erroneously found that the disputed mark gives rise to a pronunciation of “PGA” from the “PGA” monogram.

Coffee Trademark Battle

Posted on

Colombian Coffee Federation (FNC) failed a fight for invalidation of Japanese TM Registration no. 5901554 for word mark “EMERALD” in class 30 owned by The Coca-Cola Company, one of the world’s largest beverage company in the US.
[Invalidation case no. 2018-890017, Gazette issued date: August 28, 2020]

EMERALD MOUNTAIN

Emerald Mountain is a top brand name of Colombian coffee approved by FNC (NGO organization, the union of coffee producer established in 1927 joining over 560,000 members for enhancing quality, production, and export) guaranteed hand-picked and hand-screened beans of which quantity is only 3 –1% of the total production of Colombia coffee beans.

The FNC owns several trademark registrations for “EMERALD MOUNTAIN” in Japan.

In the early 90s, Emerald Mountain began to be sold by Coca-Cola as canned liquid coffee under the Georgia brand in thousands of vending machines across Japan. Since 1997 it has become the most sold coffee in Japanese history as well as the #1 beverage sold by Coca-Cola in Japan. Every can of Georgia Emerald Mountain coffee has an explanation of the Colombian origin of the coffee as well as the high-quality certification of the FNCS. With annual sales of more than 630 million cans, Georgia Emerald Mountain Blend is undoubtedly Emerald Mountain’s leading product within the Japanese market.

EMERALD

Irrespective of a long-standing relationship, The Coca Cola Company, in 2011, sought registration for a wordmark “EMERALD” over artificial coffee, coffee-based beverages, prepared coffee and cocoa, tea, ice in class 30 which confronted with a severe objection from FNC.

FNC was successful in removing the registration by means of a non-use cancellation in 2017. However, The Coca Cola Company deliberately filed a new trademark application for the same mark in 2015 immediately when the registered mark was vulnerable for cancellation on grounds of non-use. The JPO allowed registration of the new application in December 2016.

To contend, FNC filed an invalidation action against the EMERALD mark in March 2018.

Invalidation petition by FNC

FNC argued the EMERALD mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Trademark Law by stating that “EMERALD MOUNTAIN” has acquired substantial reputation and popularity as an indicator of high-quality Columbian coffee as a result of continuous sales promotion in Japan since 1970. In the coffee industry, coffee beans grown in highland are often named with the term “MOUNTAIN”, e.g. “BLUE MOUNTAIN”, “CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN”, “CARRIBERAN MOUNTAIN”, “CORAL MOUNTAIN”. In this respect, “EMERALD” shall play a prominent role in “EMERALD MOUNTAIN”. If so, both marks are deemed similar and it is likely that relevant consumers confuse or associate artificial coffee, coffee-based beverages, prepared coffee and cocoa, tea, ice bearing the EMERALD mark with “EMERALD MOUNTAIN”.

Besides, The Coca Cola Company has been using “EMERALD MOUNTAIN” on canned-liquid coffee under license from FNC. Presumably, the disputed mark was filed in anticipation of non-use cancellation claimed by FNC. In the cancellation proceeding, The Coca-Cola Company did neither answer nor respond. These facts clearly show the disputed mark was filed just to avoid cancellation even if The Coca-Cola Company had no intention to use it. It is really annoyance and free-riding on the famous marks with a fraudulent intention.

JPO decision

From the totality of evidence and circumstances, the JPO admitted a high degree of reputation and popularity of EMERALD MOUNTAIN as a source indicator of FNC’s high-quality Columbian coffee beans. In the meantime, the JPO questioned if relevant consumers connect the term “EMERALD” with FNC when used on coffee since the evidence did not disclose EMERALD MOUNTAIN is actually abbreviated to “EMERALD” in commerce. Likewise, it is suspicious whether “BLUE MOUNTAIN”, “CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN”, “CARRIBERAN MOUNTAIN”, “CORAL MOUNTAIN” are recognized with its short name, namely, “BLUE”, “CRYSTAL”, “CARRIBEAN”, “CORAL”.

In assessing the similarity of the mark, the JPO found “EMERALD MOUNTAIN” and “EMERALD” are dissimilar from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view. Given both marks are distinctively dissimilar, it is unlikely to find a likelihood of confusion in connection with the goods in dispute.

Even if The Coca-Cola Company filed the disputed mark with an intention to avoid the non-use cancellation, it would be anything but punishable in view of dissimilarity between marks. Besides, from the produced evidence, the JPO was unable to find fraudulent intention by Coca Cola to be blamed for invalidation.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to dismiss the invalidation action.

Starbucks defeated in trademark battle to defend the logo

Posted on1 Comment

On September 16, 2020, the Japan IP High Court dismissed an appeal by the American multinational coffee house chain, Starbucks Corporation, challenging the unfavorable decision made by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) that did not find a likelihood of confusion with the previous Starbucks logo. [Court case no. Reiwa1(Gyo-ke)10170]

BULL PULU TAPIOCA LOGO

Starbucks has been eagerly struggling to invalidate trademark registration for BULL PULU TAPIOKA logo (see below) because it contains a green circular frame with white lettering inside.

Disputed mark was applied for registration over tapioca-based milk products in class 29, tapioca-flavored coffee, cocoa, confectionery; tapioca powder for foods in class 30, and restaurant service in class 43 on March 9, 2016, by a Japanese Company who operates tapioca drink parlors bearing the disputed mark in Japan. JPO registered the mark on December 9, 2016.

Invalidation action to JPO

On September 15, 2017, Starbucks Corporation filed a petition for invalidation and alleged among others the disputed mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law due to similarity to, or a likelihood of confusion with senior trademark registration no. 4806987 for the previous Starbucks logo.

The third version of the Starbucks logo design, used from 1992 to 2010, consists of a black and white two-tailed siren wearing a starred crown and framed around a green circle in which the words “Starbucks Coffee” are written.

The JPO Invalidation Board questioned given five years have already passed since Starbucks redesigned its iconic emblem to the new logo whether the previous logo has continuously retained a substantial degree of reputation and popularity in Japan at the time of filing the disputed mark. Besides, the Board did see both marks are totally dissimilar and the configuration of a green circular frame with white lettering inside per se would never be known for a source indicator of Starbucks. If so, the Board found that relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse the source of goods and services in question bearing the disputed mark with Starbucks and decided to dismiss the invalidation action on August 21, 2019. [Invalidation case no. 2017-890065]

On December 19, 2019, Starbucks brought the case to the IP High Court and demanded the cancellation of the JPO decision.

IP High Court ruling

Starbucks argued the JPO erred in finding a likelihood of confusion based on the interview report which indicated more than 70% of the interviewees (total of 552 people ranging in age from 20 to 69) associated the following image of a green circular frame with white lettering inside with Starbucks.

The IP High Court held the previous logo has become remarkably famous as a source indicator of Starbucks in 2011 when it was replaced with the new logo. The Court also found the portion of a green circular frame with white lettering inside shall be impressive to consumers at the sight of the previous Starbucks logo. However, the court raised the same question if relevant consumers conceive Starbucks even when different words other than “STARBUCKS” and “COFFEE” appear inside the frame. If so, there is no reasonable ground to believe a mere image of a green circular frame with white lettering inside has played a significant role in the source indicator of Starbucks by taking account of the fact that the disputed mark was filed four years after the redesign to the new logo.

As for the interview report, the court strictly viewed that the image was not precisely identical to the previous Starbucks logo. It just focused on extracting the generic concept of the frame with lettering. In addition, interviewees were notified in advance that the image originally contained a design in the center and words to represent a company inside the frame. Such information shall be misleading and biased. If so, the report would be anything but appropriate and relevant to assess the high recognition of the frame as well as a likelihood of confusion on the case.

Based on the foregoing, the IP High Court upheld the JPO decision.

ZARA successful in invalidating the Zarbleu mark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (INDITEX), owner of the fashion brand “ZARA” in an invalidation action against Japanese TM Registration no. 6110359 for word mark “Zarbleu” in class 25 by finding a likelihood confusion with “ZARA”.
[Invalidation case no. 2019-890038, Gazette issued date: August 28, 2020]

Zarbleu

Disputed mark “Zarbleu” was applied for registration by a Chinese corporation on January 24, 2018, by designating sweaters, shirts, trousers, outers, skirts, dresses, T-shirts, underwear, headgear, gloves, coats, and other clothing in class 25, and registered on December 28, 2018, without confronting with office action from the JPO.

Invalidation action by Inditex

INDITEX, one of the world’s largest fashion retailers and owner of the fashion brand “ZARA”, filed an invalidation action on July 20, 2019, and claimed “Zarbleu” shall be retroactively invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing senior trademark registrations for word mark “ZARA” in relation with clothing in class 25 and 35.

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

INDITEX argued, given “ZARA” has acquired a remarkable reputation among relevant consumers and the close resemblance between the marks and goods, relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive opposed mark with “ZARA”.

JPO Decision

It would not surprise us that the JPO Invalidation Board admitted a high degree of reputation and popularity of “ZARA” among relevant consumers and traders as a source indicator of INDITEX in connection with clothing based on the facts that (i) “ZARA” launched fashion business in Japan since 1998 and increased the number of its stores in Japan to 100 as of December 2019, (ii) worldwide sales in excess of EUR 18 billion. (iii) ZARA has been ranked No.24(2017), No.25(2018) on Interbrand’s list of the most valuable global brands.

Astonishingly, the Board found a certain degree of similarity between “ZARA” and “Zarbleu” by stating that relevant consumers have a tendency to pay higher attention to the prefix of a mark and “Zarbleu” incorporates the same prefix “Zar” with “ZARA” which has acquired a high degree of reputation among the consumers in connection with clothing.

In addition, addressing sufficient strength of the ZARA mark as a fanciful term and close relatedness of goods in dispute, the Board concluded that relevant consumers and traders are likely to confuse clothing bearing the disputed mark “Zarbleu” with ZARA or misconceive a source from any entity systematically or economically connected with INDITEX. Thus, the disputed mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided in favor of INDITEX and declared invalidation of the disputed mark “Zarbleu”.