カテゴリー: Alphabetical word

JPO found likelihood of confusion between SONY and SONICODE

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office sided with Sony Corporation and declared invalidation of TM Registration no. 5764615 for wordmark “SONICODE” due to a likelihood of confusion with “SONY”.

[Invalidation case no. 2020-890039, Gazette issued date: July 30, 2021]

SONICODE

Field System Inc., a mobile application developer, applied wordmark “SONICODE” in standard character for registration on various goods including telecommunication apparatus, electronic machines, consumer video game programs, and its related services in class 9, 38, and 41 with the JPO on December 12, 2014 (TM App no. 2014-105218).

The mark did not face any refusal during the substantive examination and it was registered on date May 15, 2015.

Apparently, the mark has been used on mobile applications for smartphones.

SONY

SONY CORPORATION, a major Japanese manufacturer of consumer electronics products, filed an opposition against the SONICODE mark on August 5, 2015, before the lapse of a two-month statutory period for the opposition, in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law. However, the JPO Opposition Board found both marks dissimilar and no likelihood of confusion between the marks SONY and SONICODE and dismissed SONY’s allegations entirely. [Opposition case no. 2015-900260]

On May 12, 2020, just three days before the lapse of the five-year statute of limitations, SONY CORPORATION files a petition for invalidation and alleged that the contested mark shall be invalidated based on Article 4(1)(x), (xi), (xv).

SONY argued that relevant consumers would conceive SONY at the sight of the contested mark SONICODE because of a high reputation of SONY and less distinctiveness of the term “CODE” in relation to the goods and services in question.

To bolster the arguments, SONY demonstrated how AI speakers, e.g., Amazon Alexa, Google Assist, Microsoft Cortana, Apple Siri, reacted to hear “SONICODE”. Allegedly, the AI speakers recognized it as ‘SONY code’ or ‘SONY cord’ and displayed information relating to SONY.

Field System Inc. did neither answer to the petition nor dispute at all during the invalidation procedure.

JPO decision

The JPO Invalidation Board did not question a remarkable degree of reputation, popularity, and originality of “SONY” as a source indicator of the opponent’s business and its products (telecommunication apparatus, electronic machines, consumer video game programs).

Besides, the Board found the prefix “SONI” of the contested mark gives rise to a similar appearance and pronunciation with “SONY”. Relevant consumers are likely to consider that the contested mark consists of “SONI” and “CODE”. If so, even if both marks are deemed dissimilar in their entirety, the Board has good reason to believe “SONICODE” has a certain degree of similarity to “SONY”.

In view of a close association between the goods and services in question and the opponent business, the Board concluded the contested mark shall be retroactively invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv). In the meantime, because of the dissimilarity of the marks, the Board dismissed allegations based on Article 4(1)(x) and (xi).

Dolce & Gabbana failed in a trademark opposition to block DolceSport

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by the Italian luxury firm, Dolce & Gabbana against trademark registration no. 6259630 for word mark “DolceSport” in class 18, 20, 22, 25, and 28 by finding a less likelihood of confusion with “Dolce & Gabbana.”

[Opposition case no. 2020-900206, Gazette issued date: July 30, 2021]

“Dolce Sport”

Opposed mark, consisting of the word “Dolce Sport” in standard character, was filed by a Japanese company, SIS Co., Ltd. for use on various goods belonging to class 18,20, 22, 25 and 28 with the JPO on May 30, 2019 (TM Application no. 2019-83931).

The JPO admitted registration on June 15, 2020 and published for registration on July 7, 2020.

Opposition by Dolce & Gabbana

Dolce & Gabbana filed an opposition on August 19, 2020 and argued the opposed mark “Dolce Sport” shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law since relevant consumes are likely to confuse the source of goods bearing the opposed mark with Dolce & Gabbana because of a close resemblance between “Dolce Sport” and a word “Dolce” that has become famous per se as a source indicator of the opponent.

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

To apply the article, it is requisite that the mark of other entities has acquired a certain degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers in Japan.

Opponent produced evidence to demonstrate the word “Dolce” per se has been used on their goods, e.g. perfume, cosmetics, and bags. See below.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board did not admit the term “Dolce” per se has become famous as a source indicator of Dolce & Gabbana by stating that famous brand “Dolce & Gabbana” is obviously represented adjacent to the term “Dolce” on their goods. If so, the Board has good reason to believe that it would be unclear whether the term has acquired a certain degree of reputation as a source indicator of the opponent from the produced evidence. Besides, the Board questioned whether “Dolce” has been known as an abbreviation of “Dolce & Gabbana” due to the same reason.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided that, even if the opposed mark “Dolce Sport” has a medium degree of similarity with the “Dolce” and the goods in question are somewhat associated with the opponent business, relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse or misconceive a source of the opposed mark with Dolce & Gabbana by taking account of less originality of the term “Dolce” having a meaning of ‘sweet; dessert’ in Italian language and lack of good-will protectable under Article 4(1)(xv) enough to indicate a source of “Dolce & Gabbana”.

To whom does “Mary Poppins” return?

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an invalidation petition by Disney Enterprises, Inc. against Japanese TM Reg no. 5710595 for the wordmark “Mary Poppins” by finding that “Mary Poppins” has not been well known as a source indicator of Disney.

[Invalidation case no. 2019-890040, Gazette issued date: June 25, 2021]

TM Registration no. 5710595

Disputed mark, consisting of the word “Mary Poppins” in standard character (see below), was applied for registration on February 28, 2014, in respect of caring for babies [excluding services provided at facilities]; babysitting in class 45.

Without confronting refusal during the substantive examination, the disputed mark was registered on October 17, 2014.

The applicant of the disputed mark, Mary Poppins Inc., has apparently offered babysitting services in Kobe, Japan since its establishment in 1988.

Screen capture from https://www.marypoppins.co.jp/en/

Petition for invalidation by Disney

Japan Trademark Law has a provision to retroactively invalidate trademark registration for certain restricted reasons specified under Article 46 (1), provided that the interested party files an invalidation petition within a five-year statute of limitations.

Disney filed a petition for invalidation against the disputed mark on July 18, 2019, three months before the lapse of the limitations period, and argued the mark unquestionably freerides on the world-famous Walt Disney film “Mary Poppins” and thus relevant consumers would associate the disputed mark with Disney when used on the services in question. If so, it shall be invalid in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law prohibits any mark likely to cause damage to public order or morality from registration.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entities ’ well-known goods or services, to the benefit of brand owners and users.

Article 4(1)(xix) prohibits registering a trademark that is identical with, or similar to, another entity’s famous mark, if such trademark is aimed for unfair purposes, e.g. gaining unfair profits, or causing damage to the entity.

Mary Poppins, an American musical film, released in 1964, features the now-iconic screen debut of Julie Andrews. A children’s classic, Mary Poppins is considered to be among the finest of Walt Disney’s productions based on the original books by P.L Travers.

JPO Decision

The JPO Invalidation Board admitted a certain degree of reputation and popularity of “Mary Poppins” as the title of the beloved Walt Disney film and the name of the main character of the film.

In the meantime, the Board questioned if “Mary Poppins” has played a distinctive role in indicating a source of Disney’s goods or services. A mere fact that goods featuring the Walt Disney films and its characters are merchandised at the Tokyo Disney Resort and Disney Shops in Japan is insufficient to prove Disney has used “Mary Poppins” as a source indicator to identify their business, the Board found.

In so far as “Mary Poppins” has not been recognized as a source indicator, but a title of the world-famous Walt Disney film or the main character of the film, it is unlikely that relevant consumers would consider the disputed mark “Mary Poppins” used on the services in question coming from Disney or entities systematically or economically connected with the opponent.

The Board also referred to the precedent court cases that ruled invalidation of the trademark “Anne of Green Gables” and “Tarzan” in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii). Contrary to these films, the Board could find no authorized activity to protect or preserve the film or original books of “Mary Poppins” as cultural heritage and prohibit unlicensed use by the private sector. If so, it is inadequate to treat the case equally with them. The Board held that the disputed mark shall not be likely to cause damage to public order or morality.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided the disputed mark shall remain valid and dismissed the invalidation entirely.

JPO found Italian word “Panetteria” distinctive in relation to restaurant service

Posted on

In a recent administrative decision, the Appeal Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) disaffirmed the examiner’s refusal and found “Panetteria ARIETTA” and “ARIETTA” are dissimilar by virtue of distinctiveness of the term “Panetteria.”

[Appeal case no. 2020-9688, Gazette issued date: May 28, 2021]

Panetteria ARIETTA

FOOD ENGINEERING DESIGN INC., a Japanese commercial bakery and restaurant, filed a trademark registration for word mark consisting of the term “Panetteria ARIETTA” in a gothic type and its transliteration written in a Japanese katakana character (see below) for use on confectionery and bread in class 30 and restaurant service in class 43 on January 15, 2019 [TM App no. 2019-8176].

The applicant has used the applied mark as a shop name on bakeries located in Tokyo.

ARIETTA

The JPO examiner raised her objection on the ground that the applied mark is deemed similar to senior trademark registration no. 5106118 for word mark consisting of the term “ARIETTA” and its transliteration written in a Japanese katakana character (see below) on restaurants and other services in class 43.

In the refusal decision dated May 7, 2020, the examiner asserted the term “Panetteria” is an Italian word meaning ‘bakery’ and thus lacks distinctiveness in relation to bread and restaurant service. If so, other term “ARIETTA” of the applied mark would play a dominant role of its source indicator. Accordingly, the examiner rejected the applied mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

The applicant filed an appeal against the refusal on July 10, 2020.

JPO Appeal Board decision

The Appeal Board questioned whether an Italian word “Panetteria” is commonly used as a descriptive indication in relation to restaurant service in Japan. The Board found the term as well as its meaning is not familiar among the general public. Under the circumstance, the examiner errored in assessing distinctiveness of the word. A mere fact that the term “Panetteria” appears in an Italian language dictionary is insufficient to conclude a portion of the term “ARIETTA” per se plays a role of source indicator of the applied mark.

Provided that relevant consumers would not conceive any specific meaning from the term “Panetteria”, the Board held the applied mark “Panetteria ARIETTA” and cited mark “ARIETTA” are obviously dissimilar as a whole from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO Appeal Board disaffirmed the examiner’s rejection and decided to register the applied mark accordingly.

Which to win, first to file or first to trademark?

Posted on

A recent JPO decision over trademark opposition for “Le Tan” will serve as a cautionary message to brand owners who intend to launch business in Japan before too long.

Le Tan

Heritage Le Tan Pty Limited, an Australian Private Company, acquired the Le Tan brand in 2015 for use on tanning lotions & sprays, tanning oils, coconut screen, after sun, which has been made in Australia since 1977 and grown into the number one tanning brand in Australia.

Heritage filed a trademark application with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) for its iconic house mark (see below) on ‘Sunscreen preparations; lotions for cosmetic purposes; sun protection oils [cosmetics]; sunscreen creams; sun-tanning preparations [cosmetics]; self-tanning creams; self-tanning lotions; self-tanning preparations [cosmetic]; cosmetics’ in class 3 on October 28, 2019, when six months have passed after actual sales took place allegedly in April 2019, in Japan.

On November 30, 2020, the JPO examiner raised her objection due to a conflict with senior trademark registration no. 6251672 in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Opposed mark “LE TAN”

Chanson cosmetics Inc., a Japanese private company, filed the cited mark “LE TAN” for use on ‘cosmetics and toiletries’ in class 3 on June 20, 2019, with the JPO.

The mark, consisting of words “LE TAN” and its transliteration written in Japanese Katakana characters (see below), was registered on May 14, 2020, and published for post-grant opposition on June 2, 2020.

Opposition: “Le Tan” vs “LE TAN”

Apparently, in anticipation of the upcoming refusal or perhaps, because of any other reason, Heritage filed an opposition against the mark on July 30, 2020.

In the opposition brief, Heritage argued the opposed mark shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xix) of the Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xix) prohibits registering a trademark that is identical with, or similar to, other entity’s famous mark, if such trademark is aimed for unfair purposes, e.g. gaining unfair profits, or causing damage to the entity.

Heritage argued a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity of the Le Tan mark in Australia in relation to sunscreen and suntan preparations [cosmetics] as a result of substantial use of the mark by producing evidence to demonstrate growing annual sales (approx. 16 million Australian dollars in 2017), the second market share of 16 % in Australia (2013) , increasing website visitors (approx. 86,000 in 2019) , email subscriptions (24,000) and followers (Instagram: 250,000, Facebook: 180,000) , and annual expense for advertisement and publication (approx. 0.6 ~ 1 million Australian dollars for the past decade) by means of television, radio, magazine, the internet.

Heritage mentioned they had begun to export their products since 2015 and launched promotion and distribution to Japanese consumers in April 2019.

In an attempt to prove Chanson’s unlawful intention, Heritage pointed out the fact that Chanson has registered the mark “LE TEMPS” pronounced the same as “LE TAN” on the same class since 1984 and used the mark on skin-care cosmetics in fact. Heritage alleged that it appeared unreasonable for Chanson to file the opposed mark which has a same pronunciation but different spelling since Chanson must be convinced that skin-care conscious consumers are unwilling to use cosmetics giving rise to an impression of ‘the suntan.’ If so, Chanson must have filed the opposed mark just two months after the launch of trademarking Australian brand “Le Tan” in Japan simply because of interrupting their business.

JPO Decision

The Opposition Board of the JPO admitted a certain degree of reputation and popularity of the “Le Tan” mark in Australia in view of substantial use on sunscreen or suntan preparations [cosmetics] over four decades, however, the Board denied Heritage’s allegation that the opposed mark was filed with a malicious intention by stating:

From the totality of circumstance, the Board can’t find any reason to believe that Chanson sought for protection of the opposed mark to gain unfair profits or cause damage to the opponent. A mere fact the opposed mark was filed a few months after the opponent started to use the “Le Tan” mark in Japan was insufficient to find unfair purposes subject to Article 4(1)(xix). Heritage failed to convince the Board of the likelihood of interruption. Noticeably, according to the produced evidence, the opponent business in Japan is expanding contrary to their allegations.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to dismiss the opposition entirely and concluded the Opposed mark shall remain valid as the status quo.

Trademark Similarity: APLAY vs applay

Posted on

In a trademark dispute pertinent to the similarity between “APLAY” and “applay”, the Appeal Board of the Japan Patent Office found both marks dissimilar and reversed the examiner’s rejection.
[Appeal case no. 2020-6380, Gazette issued date: April 30, 2021]

APLAY

A senior mark, consisting of the word “APLAY” in standard character, was registered on April 28, 2017 (TM Reg no. 5943175) over computer programs; application software; game programs for home video game machines; electronic circuits, and CD-ROMS recorded with programs for hand-held games with liquid crystal displays; electronic publications; earphones; headphones in class 9, and software as a service [SaaS]; other related computer services in class 42 by Nain Inc.

Apparently, Nain has used “APLAY” on wireless earphones and connect app for android (see below).

applay

Applied junior mark, consisting of the word “applay”, was sought for registration on August 7, 2019, over toys in class 28 [TM application no. 2019-107218] by Ed. Inter Co., Ltd.

The applicant uses the mark on wooden toys for kids (see below).

The JPO examiner rejected “applay” because of similarity to “APLAY” based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registering a junior mark that is identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

There is the criterion that the examiner is checking when assessing the similarity between the marks:

  • visual similarity
  • aural similarity
  • conceptual similarity

and taking into account all these three aspects, the examiner would decide if a mark is similar (at least to some extent) to the earlier mark and if there is a likelihood of confusion for the consumers.

Applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on May 12, 2020, and argued dissimilarity of the marks.

Appeal Board decision

In the decision, the Appeal Board held that:

In appearance, there are differences in the third letter ‘p’, and lower case or upper-case letters. These would give rise to a distinctive impression visually in the mind of relevant consumers where the respective mark consists of five or six-letter words, anything but long.

Next, assessing the pronunciation between applied mark [ˈæpleɪ] and the cited mark [əˈpleɪ], the difference in the first sound would be anything but negligible in view of a few phonetic compositions of four sounds in total. Relevant consumers would be unlikely to confuse each sound when pronounced because of phonetical distinction in overall nuance and tone as a whole

Thirdly, the respective mark does not give rise to any specific meaning at all. If so, both marks are incomparable from the concept.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found no reasonable reason to affirm the JPO examiner’s rejection from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view as well as consumer perception and decided to reverse the examiner’s rejection.

AlphaGo Unsuccessful in Defeating AlphaMini

Posted on

“AlphaGo” AI system, developed by Google-owned artificial intelligence company DeepMind, has gained the world’s attention after defeating the top human players of the world in a game of go in the year 2016. But, in a recent opposition decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not admit the famousness of the trademark “AlphaGo”.
[Opposition case no. 2020-900207, Gazette issued date: March 26, 2021]

AlphaMini

Opposed mark “AlphaMini” (see below) was filed with the JPO by UBTECH Robotics, Inc., Chinese artificial intelligence and humanoid robotic company on July 26, 2019, and designated ‘computer programs; AI-powered humanoid robots; application software for smartphones; security surveillance robots; sensors; teaching robots; navigational instruments; mobile phones; facial recognition software; cameras’ in class 9 and ‘games; toy robots; toys; board games; balls for games; body-building apparatus; fishing tackle; archery implements’ in class 28.

According to the website of URTECH Robotics, Inc., the mark is used as a name of their humanoid educational robot.

Opposition by DeepMind “AlphaGo”

DeepMind Technologies Limited filed an opposition against “AlphaMini” and argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law because relevant consumes would confuse the source of goods bearing the opposed mark “AlphaMini” with DeepMind due to a close resemblance between two marks and famousness of “AlphaGo”.

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

Besides, DeepMind owns several trademarks that begin with the term “ALPHA”, namely, “ALPHACHESS”, “ALPHAZERO”, “ALPHAFOLD”, “ALPHASHOGI”. Taking into consideration a highly renowned computer program “AlphaGo” as the very first AI program that was able to beat one of the highest-ranked human players in the world in 2016, as well as a naming strategy for “ALPHA” AI system series, relevant consumers are likely to associate the opposed mark “AlphaMini” with DeepMind when used on its designated goods in class 9 and 28.

JPO Decision

The Opposition Board of the JPO had concluded that insufficient evidence had been submitted to support the assumption of a well-known mark that is protectable under Article 4(1)(xv).

The Board pointed out that most of the produced newspapers and magazines did not prove the use of the mark “AlphaGo” as a source indicator of the computer program for Go developed by DeepMind. Instead, they just revealed the term “アルファ碁” has been used to represent the AI system by DeepMind. “アルファ碁” is precisely a translation and transliteration of “AlphaGo” written in Japanese character.

The JPO held the mere fact that the first word of both marks is identical would be insufficient. Overall impression of “AlphaGo” and “AlphaMini” is remarkably different from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view. Thus, the Board found a low level of similarity between the two marks.

Even if the goods in dispute are closely associated with DeepMind’s business, given a low level of similarity and insufficient evidence to assume the famousness of “AlphaGo”, the Board had no reason to believe the opposed mark would cause confusion with DeepMind when used on the disputed goods in class 9 and 28.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the opposed mark would not be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(x) of the Trademark Law and dismissed the opposition entirely.

COCO vs COCOMIST – Decision of the Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office

Posted on

Chanel handed a loss in its attempt to block Japanese trademark registration no. 6202587 for wordmark “COCOMIST” to be used on cosmetics, perfumery, fragrances, incense, and other goods in class 3.
[Opposition case no. 2020-900047, Gazette issued date: February 26, 2021.]

COCOMIST

The opposed mark consists of the word “COCOMIST” written in standard character (see below). Applicant, a Japanese company, 196+ Inc., filed it for use on ‘cosmetics, perfumery, fragrances, incense, toiletry preparations’ and other goods in Class 3 on January 7, 2019.

The mark was published for post-grant opposition on December 24, 2019, without confronting any office action from the JPO examiner.

It is apparent that the applicant actually uses the opposed mark on cleaning mist.

Opposition by CHANEL

On February 20, 2020, CHANEL SARL filed an Opposition and argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Trademark Law on the grounds that:

  1. Since 1995, the opponent has owned senior trademark registration no. 2704127 for wordmark “COCO” over cosmetics, perfumery, and fragrances, which has unquestionably acquired a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity as a source indicator of the opponent’s cosmetics as well as a nickname or short name of French fashion designer “Gabrielle COCO CHANEL”, the founder of the Chanel brand.
  2. The term “MIST” lacks distinctiveness in relation to cosmetics. If so, relevant consumers at the sight of the opposed mark would easily conceive “COCO” as a prominent portion when used on goods in question.
  3. In view of the close resemblance between two marks and goods, presumably, the applicant must have applied the opposed mark for use on cosmetics with prior knowledge of the cited mark and fraudulent intention of free-riding on its reputation.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted a high degree of reputation and popularity of “COCO” as a source indicator of the opponent’s perfumery and fragrances among relevant consumers based on substantial use of the cited mark in Japan but questioned its famousness in relation to other cosmetics except for perfumery and fragrances.

The JPO denied the similarity between the opposed mark and “COCO”, stating that the opposed mark shall be taken as a whole in view of a tight combination of its literal element from appearance. If so, the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning and the Board has no reasonable ground to believe that the opposed mark “COCOMIST” shall be similar to “COCO” from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view.

Given a low degree of similarity between the marks, the Board held the opposed mark is unlikely to cause confusion even when used on perfumery and fragrances.

Assuming that both marks are dissimilar, the Board was not convinced that the applicant aimed for free-riding on the goodwill of Chanel.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations of CHANEL SARL and allowed the opposed mark to register as the status quo.

JPO rejects “AIR NECKTIE” due to similarity to NIKE “AIR”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an appeal filed by a Japanese individual who sought registration for use of the wordmark “AIR NECKTIE” on neckties in class 25 due to the similarity to NIKE “AIR.”
[Appeal case no. 2020-4106, Gazette issued date: February 26, 2021.]

AIR NECKTIE

The mark in question, consisting of two English words “AIR” and “NECKTIE”, and its transliteration in a Japanese katakana character (see below), was filed for use on ‘neckties’ in class 25 with the JPO on July 6, 2018 [TM Application no. 2018-88482].

TM App no. 2018-88482

AIR

The examiner raised her objection based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law by citing senior registration nos. 502137 and 4327964 for the mark “AIR” owned by NIKE Innovate C.V. (see below) which cover clothing, shoes, neckties, and other goods in class 25.

TM Reg no. 502137
TM Reg no. 4327964

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registering a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

Regardless of the arguments made on a written response to the office action by the applicant, the JPO examiner entirely rejected the “AIR NECKTIE” mark based on the ground.

On March 6, 2020, the applicant filed an appeal against the refusal with the JPO and disputed that the applied mark “AIR NECKTIE” is dissimilar to the cited mark “AIR.”

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board referred to the tests established by the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 to determine whether it is permissible to take out respective elements of the composite mark when assessing the similarity of two marks.

“Where a mark in dispute is recognized as a composite mark consisting of two elements or more, it is not permissible to assess the similarity of marks simply by means of taking out an element of the composite mark and then comparing such element with the other mark, unless consumers or traders are likely to perceive the element as a dominant portion indicating its source of origin of goods/service, or remaining elements truly lack inherent distinctiveness as a source indicator in view of sound and concept.”

Based on the tests, the Board found that it is permissible to take out a literal element “AIR” from the applied mark and compare it with the citations by stating the following grounds:

  1. The applied mark can be seen as a composite mark consisting of ‘AIR’ and ‘NECKTIE’ because of the space between two words.
  2. “NECKTIE” is unquestionably recognized as a generic term in connection with ‘neckties’ in class 25.
  3. Relevant consumers at the sight of neckties bearing the mark “AIR NECKTIE” would conceive the term “AIR” as a prominent source indicator.
  4. “AIR NECKTIE” does not give rise to any specific meaning in its entirety.
  5. The above facts suggest that “NECKTIE” lacks inherent distinctiveness in relation to the goods in question, and it would not play the role of source indicator of the applied mark in view of sound as well as concept.

Based on the foregoing, the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection and decided that the applied mark “AIR NECKTIE” is similar to the cited marks as a whole given the remarkable similarity in sound and concept, even if the word “NECKTIE” differentiates two marks in appearance.

“MACSELL” for use on PC value estimation service is unlikely to cause confusion with Apple “Mac”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition claimed by Apple Inc. against trademark registration no. 6223514 for word mark “MACSELL” on used mobile phone, Smartphone, PC and tablet computer value estimation service in class 36 by finding less likelihood of confusion with Apple “Mac” series.
 [Opposition case no. 2020-900114, Gazette issued date: Jan 29, 2021]

MACSELL

Opposed word mark “MACSELL” in standard character was filed on March 22, 2019, for the service of used mobile phone, Smartphone, PC and tablet computer value estimation, and others in class 36. Going through the substantive examination, the JPO admitted registration on February 6, 2020.

Apparently, the opposed mark is used as a tradename of used Mac and Surface recycle shop managed by the applicant.

Capture from “MACSELL” website
Capture from Google “Street View”

Apple’s Opposition

Apple Inc. argued the opposed mark “MACSELL” shall be canceled in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

“Mac” has become famous as a source indicator of Apple’s PC by virtue of substantial use with various trademarks, e.g. “MacBook Air” and “MacBook Pro” on laptops, “iMac” and “iMac Pro” on desktops, “Mac Pro” and “Mac mini” on computer hardware.

The opposed mark, consisting of “MAC” and “SELL”, would easily give rise to a meaning of offering Apple’s PC for sale.

If so, relevant consumers at the sight of the opposed mark when used on the service in question are likely to associate and confuse the origin of the opposed mark with Apple Inc. or any entity related to the opponent.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity of “Mac” as a source indicator of Apple Inc. and a close association between Apple’s goods and the service in question.

However, the Board found a low level of similarity between “MACSELL” and “Mac” by stating that the term “SELL” would severely cause a distinctive impression between both marks from visual, phonetical, and conceptual points of view, even if the marks share the word “MAC.”

Besides, taking into account a low level of originality of the opponent mark “Mac,” the Board questioned if relevant consumers and traders are likely to associate or connect the opposed mark with the opponent when used on the service in question.

Consequently, the Board held that relevant consumers would be unlikely to confuse the source of the opposed mark with Apple Inc. and any entity economically or systematically connected with the opponent.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to dismiss the opposition entirely and allowed registration of the opposed mark as status quo.