カテゴリー: Article 4(1)(vii)

Trademark Dispute: PINGU vs pingu・pongu

Posted on

In a recent opposition decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition claimed by Joker, Inc. against TM Reg no. 6924753 for wordmark “pingu・pongu”, finding dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with the opponent’s earlier mark “PINGU.”
[Opposition case no. 2025-900151, decided on May 22, 2026]

Contested mark

A Japanese individual filed trademark application for wordmark “pingu・pongu” in standard character for use on several services in Class 41, including educational and instruction service, arranging seminars, providing electronic publications, and amusement with the JPO on October 3, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-106222]

The JPO granted registration of the mark on May 1, 2025, and published it for a post- grant opposition on May 13, 2025.

Opposition by Joker, Inc.

Joker, Inc., an owner of the copyright and trademark rights featuring a 5-year-old boy penguin character “Pingu”, filed an opposition on July 11, 2025 and claimed cancellation of the contested mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Trademark Law based on their earlier trademark registration no. 5316898 (see below).

The JPO Opposition Board decision

1. Recognition of the cited mark “PINGU”

The JPO acknowledged that the name “PINGU” (ピングー), associated with the well-known penguin character, had been used in Japan since the 1990s and had achieved a certain degree of public recognition by the early 2000s.

However, the Office found that the evidence submitted by the opponent was insufficient to demonstrate that the cited mark remained widely recognized at the time the contested mark was filed and registered. While the record showed ongoing activities such as merchandise sales, social media promotions, and events involving PINGU, no evidence was provided regarding sales figures, market share, advertising expenditures, or the current level of consumer recognition.

The JPO also noted the absence of objective evidence linking those activities directly to the opponent’s business. As a result, the Office concluded that the opponent had failed to prove that the cited mark PINGU was widely recognized among consumers in Japan or abroad as indicating the opponent’s goods or services.

2. Comparison of two marks

Although the mark contains the element “pingu,” the two components are represented in the same font, size, and spacing, and are connected by a centered do, the JPO held that the contested mark “pingu・pongu” should be viewed as a single, inseparable coined term. The pronunciations, “Pingu-Pongu,” are neither awkward nor unnatural. Since neither “pingu” nor “pongu” has a recognized meaning in ordinary dictionaries, consumers would perceive the mark as a whole as an invented term without any particular meaning.

The cited mark consisted of a penguin character design incorporating the word “PINGU,” together with the wording “PINGU’S ENGLISH.”

According to the JPO, both the figurative and verbal elements of the cited mark could independently function as source identifiers. The literal elements therefore generated pronunciations such as “Pingu,” “Pingu’s English,” but conveyed no specific meaning because the elements are coined terms.

3. No Likelihood of Confusion

Comparing the marks, the JPO found significant differences in appearance. The cited mark contains a prominent penguin device and additional wording, whereas the contested mark consists solely of the standard-character expression “pingu・pongu.”

The Office also determined that the respective pronunciations are clearly distinguishable. “Pingu-Pongu” differs substantially in both syllabic structure and overall sound from “Pingu,” and “Pingu’s English.”

As neither mark conveys a particular concept, no conceptual comparison could be made.

Considering the visual and phonetic differences as a whole, the JPO concluded that the marks are dissimilar and unlikely to be confused. Consequently, the contested mark did not fall within Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law.

Trademark Dispute: RUBIK CUBE vs RUBiK Pi

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the opposition to TM Reg no. 6945136 for the stylized mark “RUBiK Pi,” claimed by SPIN MASTER TOYS UK LIMITED, the owner of the famous “RUBIK CUBE” mark for the three-dimensional puzzle cube, by finding dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion between the two marks.
[Opposition case no. 2025-900188, decided on March 16, 2026]

TM Reg no. 6945136

The contested mark (see below) was filed by Thunder Software Technology Co., Ltd., a leading Chinese provider of smart operating system (OS) technologies and services, for use on computer-related goods and services in Classes 9, 41, and 42 with the JPO on December 3, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-129535].

The literal element of the mark appears to be “RUBi Pi” due to a cube design placed between two terms. However, the applicant’s website indicates the contested mark in colors to be read as “RUBIK Pi”.

https://www.thundercomm.com/product/rubik-pi/

The JPO examiner did not issue a notice of grounds for refusal. The mark was registered on July 4, 2025, and then published for a post-grant opposition on July 14.

Opposition by SPIN MASTER TOYS UK LIMITED

On September 16, 2025, just before the lapse of statutory opposition period for two months, SPIN MASTER TOYS UK LIMITED filed an opposition against the contested mark and claimed cancellation of its entire registration in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing the earlier marks in connection with the world-famous three-dimensional puzzle cube (Cited mark No. 1 – 6), “RUBIK CUBE”.

The claimant argued that relevant consumers and traders will consider the cube design representing the letter “K,” and thus the contested mark, to be read as “RUBIK” or “RUBIK Pi” in the course of actual business, given that the applicant’s product (a lightweight development board for AI platforms) using the contested mark is offered for sale in the name of “RUBIK Pi” on their website.

Considering that the Cited marks are famous worldwide as an indicator of the claimant’s 3D puzzle cubes, consumers would mistakenly recognize the commercial source of the goods and services in question as being from the claimant or other economically linked undertakings at the sight of the contested mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted the remarkable degree of recognition and popularity of the Cited mark Nos. 3, 5, and 6 as source indicators of the claimant’s business based on the evidence submitted by the claimant. However, the Board questioned whether the other Cited marks, which mainly consist of the term “RUBIK,” have also become famous for identifying the claimant’s source.

Regarding the contested mark, the Board found that its overall configuration would not create the sound of “RUBIK” or “RUBIK Pi.” Instead, the contested mark gives rise to the sound of “RUBi Pi,” but has no clear meaning.

Even if the Cited mark 3 “RUBIK CUBE” has become famous, relevant consumers are unlikely to associate the goods and services in question bearing the contested mark with the Cited marks due to the marks’ low degree of similarity. Therefore, the Board held that the contested mark should not be vulnerable to cancellation based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

JPO Found Trademark Squatter Liable for Disobeying Public Order

Posted on

In a trademark dispute regarding the validity of TM Reg no. 6680828 “Alphacool,” the Japan Patent Office (JPO) declared invalidation of the contested mark because of disobeying the public order by a trademark squatter.
[Invalidation case no. 2025-890027, decided on December 9, 2025]

Trademark Squatting

The mark at issue, consisting of the term “Alphacool” in standard character, was filed with the JPO for use on goods in Class 9 on May 16, 2022, by a Chinese individual, and registered on March 15, 2023 [TM Reg no. 6680828].

The applicant filed 80 trademark applications from October 13, 2019, to August 6, 2024. “dyson”, “roomba”, “Xiaomi” are included among them. 48 marks are already registered. However, nine of them are subject to opposition, and seven to invalidation.

On April 21, 2025, Alphacool International GmbH requested the invalidation of TM Reg no. 6680828 “Alphacool” in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

JPO decision

The JPO invalidation Board observed that the applicant must have knowingly filed a lot of trademarks, including the contested mark used by other business entities. Actual use of the contested mark by the applicant rather suggests that the applicant sought to parasitize the other’s trademarks with malicious intent to disturb their business or free-ride on the reputation of their marks.

To bolster the above finding, the Board noted the fact that 16 marks out of 48 registered by the applicant are subject to opposition or invalidation actions. The ratio is approximately 33%. According to the JPO annual statistics, the average ratio is 0.5% for registered marks to be opposed or invalidated. Compared to the average ratio, 33% must be extremely high.

Accordingly, the Board found the contested mark should be invalidated based on Article 4(1)(vii) due to the likelihood of disobeying public order.

Samsung Unsuccessful in Trademark Opposition against BEAT GALAXY

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Samsung, the South Korean tech giant, in a trademark opposition against TM Reg no. 6895229 for word mark “BEAT GALAXY” in Class 9 by finding a low degree of similarity to and less likelihood of confusion with the mark “GALAXY” even when used on PDA, mobile phones.
[Opposition case no. 2025-900084, decided on December 2, 2025]

BEAT GALAXY

UMG Recordings Inc. filed a trademark application for the wordmark “BEAT GALAXY” in standard character with the JPO on November 13, 2023, for use on PDA, mobile phones, computers, computer software, audio files and other goods in Class 9 [TM App no. 2023-129205].

https://www.universalmusic.com/universal-music-group-and-supersocial-announce-beat-galaxy-on-roblox-a-groundbreaking-music-hub-featuring-artists-and-music-from-umg/

The JPO examiner granted protection of the mark on February 4, 2025.

Subsequently, it was published for a post-grant opposition on February 20, 2025.

Opposition by Samsung

Samsung, a South Korean tech giant, filed an opposition against the mark “BEAT GALAXY” on April 18, 2025, and claimed cancellation of the contested mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing their earlier mark “GALAXY”.

Samsung argued the contested mark “BEAT GALAXY” is similar to the cited mark, and conveys a negative impression of defeating Samsung’s Galaxy. Thus, the contested mark detrimentally affects the goodwill of the cited mark. Relevant consumers are likely to associate the contested mark with Samsung.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that the cited mark “GALAXY” has been widely recognised as an indicator of Samsung’s business.

In the meantime, the Board denied similarity between “BEAT GALAXY” and “GALAXY” by stating that:

The contested mark and the cited mark differ in the presence of the word “BEAT” at the beginning of the contested mark. Therefore, even when assessed in a different time and place, there is no likelihood of confusion in appearance.

Secondly, the different sound caused by the word “Beat” at the beginning of the contested mark significantly affects the overall aural impression. As both sounds are distinguishable as a whole, there is no likelihood of confusion in pronunciation.

As for concept, while the contested mark does not have any specific concept, the cited mark gives rise to a meaning of a collection of stars and planets that are held together by gravity. Accordingly, both marks are neutral in concept.

Based on the foregoing, the Board noted that, even though the goods in question are highly related to Samsung’s business, in view of a low degree of similarity and originality of the cited mark, it is reasonable to conclude that relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse a source of goods bearing the contested mark with Samsung or any undertaking economically or systematically connected with the claimant.

Consequently, the Board decided to dismiss the entire opposition.

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.

JPO dismisses Honda’s opposition against “WONKEY” mark for motorcycles

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Honda Motor Co., Ltd. against TM Reg No. 6852662 for the word mark “WONKEY” in Class 12, finding no similarity or likelihood of confusion with Honda’s well-known “MONKEY” bikes.
[Opposition Case No. 2024-900262, decided July 15, 2025]

The Contested Mark: “WONKEY”

The opposed mark, consisting of the stylized word “WONKEY” in bold font (see below), was filed by Diner Co., Ltd. on February 26, 2024, for use on motorcycles, electrically operated scooters, and electric bicycles in Class 12 [TM App. No. 2024-18623].

The applicant promotes “WONKEY” motorized bicycles that may be driven by persons over 16 years of age without a driver’s license.

https://wobikes.com/collections/wonkey

The JPO granted registration on October 9, 2024 [TM Reg. No. 6852662], and published it for post-grant opposition on October 18, 2024.

Honda’s Opposition

On December 17, 2024, Honda filed an opposition, seeking cancellation under Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Trademark Law, relying on its earlier Trademark Registration No. 2512844 for the stylized word mark “MONKEY” in Class 12.

Honda argued that “WONKEY” is visually similar to “MONKEY,” emphasizing that:

“Of the six letters, five (‘onkey’) are identical in type, spelling, and sequence. The only difference lies in the initial letters ‘w’ and ‘m,’ which themselves share similar forms composed of two v-shaped or u-shaped strokes. At first glance, the two letters appear alike, and thus the marks as a whole create a closely similar impression, rendering them confusingly similar in appearance.”

To support its case, Honda submitted extensive evidence demonstrating the fame of its “Monkey” bikes, which have been marketed since 1961.

https://www.honda.co.jp/Monkey125/

The JPO’s Decision

The Opposition Board acknowledged the widespread recognition of Honda’s “Monkey” bikes among relevant consumers at the time of application and registration of the contested mark.

Nevertheless, the Board denied similarity between the marks. In particular, it reasoned that:

  • The contested mark “WONKEY” does not generate any specific concept.
  • The cited mark “MONKEY,” by contrast, is a well-known word in Japan with the meaning “monkey,” giving rise to both the pronunciation “monkey” and the concept of “monkey.”
  • While the two marks share all letters and sounds except for their initial characters (“w” vs. “m”; “wo” vs. “mo”), both are short (six letters and four sounds). Accordingly, the initial differences exert a significant impact on the overall appearance and pronunciation.
  • Coupled with the concept of “monkey” derived from the cited mark, these differences lead to a clear distinction in the overall impressions, memories, and associations conveyed to consumers.

The Board concluded that, given the low degree of similarity, relevant consumers were unlikely to confuse the source of the contested goods in Class 12 with Honda or any economically or organizationally related entity.

Based on the above findings, the JPO dismissed the opposition in its entirety and upheld the validity of the contested mark “WONKEY.”

JPO Finds trademark “yes no champagne” for wines with the protected appellation of origin “Champagne” registrable even if owned by Japanese company.

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de. Champagne (C.I.V.C.) against TM Reg no. 6843113 for wordmark “yes no champagne” in Class 33 by stating that Japanese ownership of the contested mark would neither harm the friendly relationship between Japan and France, nor public sentiment.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900238, decided on June 24, 2025]

YES NO CHAMPAGNE

ZERU Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application for word mark “yea no champagne” and its Japanese transliteration arranged in two lines (see below) for use on wines in Class 33 with the JPO on November 16, 2023. [TM App no. 2023-133081]

On May 31, 2024, the JPO examiner issued an office action based on Article 4(1)(xvi) and (xvii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xvi) prohibits registering a mark that could mislead consumers about the quality of the goods.

Article 4(1)(xvii) prohibits the registration of any mark comprised of a mark indicating the place of origin of wines or spirits from the World Trade Organization member that has prohibited its use on wines or spirits not originating from its region.

Since, the applicant restricted the designated goods in Class 33 to wines with the protected appellation of origin “Champagne” as a response to the office action, the JPO examiner granted registration of the mark. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on September 20, 2024.

Opposition by C.I.V.C.

On November 21, 2024, just before a lapse of the two-month statutory opposition period, Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de. Champagne (C.I.V.C.) filed an opposition and claimed cancelation of the contested mark based on Article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(vii) provides that a mark shall not be registered if it is likely to cause damage to public policy.

In the opposition brief, the C.I.V.C. argued that any mark containing the term “Champagne” should not be owned by an entity with no connection to or place of business in the region. Such ownership would likely to lead to free-riding on a famous geographical indication, diluting its source-identifying value and ultimately dishonoring France and its citizens, contrary to international faith.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted the remarkable reputation of the geographical indication “Champagne” among the general public, which was acquired through substantive use and marketing efforts made by the C.I.V.C. and other relevant organizations. The Board also found that the term “Champagne” and Champagne wines are cultural products of France and of extremely high significance to the country and its citizens.

Meanwhile, the Board noted that champagne wines are widely distributed in Japan, and that relevant traders commonly use the term “champagne” to refer to the wines.

Taking account of long-lasting trade practice that the term “Champagne” has been commonly used among traders of the goods in question, it would not anything but disorder public policy or moral to use the contested mark that contains the term “Champagne” in connection with wines with the protected appellation of origin “Champagne.”

If so, the Board finds no reason to believe that registration and use of the contested mark by the applicant is likely to harm the friendly relationship between Japan and France or public sentiment.

Based on the above findings, the Board made a decision to dismiss the opposition entirely.

Trademark dispute: MINI vs. DMINI

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition claimed by BMW against TM Reg no. 6798869 for wordmark “DMINI” in class 12 due to dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with a famous small car “MINI”.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900137, Gazette issued date: April 25, 2025]

DMINI

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation filed a trademark application for word mark “DMINI” in standard character for use on automobiles, motorcycles, bicycles, electric cars, hybrid electric cars, driverless cars and other goods in class 12 with the JPO on October 10, 2023.

The JPO examiner did not raise any objection in the course of substantive examination, and granted registration on March 29, 2024.

The mark “DMINI” was published on trademark registration gazette (TM Reg no. 6798869) for a post-grant opposition on May 7, 2024.

Opposition by BMW

Bayerische Motoren Werke GmbH (BMW) filed an opposition with the JPO on July 5, 2024 before the lapse of two-month statutory period counting from the publication date.

BMW requested the cancellation of the mark “DMINI” based on Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing its owned earlier trademark registrations for wordmark “MINI” in class 12.

Allegedly, the cited mark has become famous among the relevant consumers to indicate a source of the world-famous small cars “MINI” that have been imported into Japan for more than the past six decades. BMW argued that the literal element “MINI” would be dominant in the opposed mark, taking into account the high degree of recognition of the cited mark “MINI” among the consumers. If so, both marks should be considered similar, or likely to cause confusion in relation to the goods in question.

JPO decision

From the produced evidence, the JPO Opposition Board found the cited mark “MINI” has acquired a remarkable degree of popularity and reputation among consumers to indicate the automobiles (small cars) manufactured by BMW.

However, the Opposition Board question similarity of the marks by stating that:

“There is a difference in the presence or absence of the letter “D” at the beginning of each mark. The difference has a strong visual impact and is likely to create a different impression given the relatively short character structure of five and four letters respectively. Therefore, there is a low degree of visual similarity between the marks.

Secondly, there is a difference between in the overall sound of “DMINI” and “MINI” due to the presence or absence of the sound “D” at the beginning. It has a significant impact on the overall sound, given the short phonetic structure of four or two sounds, and thus the overall tone and aural impression are clearly different to the extent that a risk of confusion in pronunciation is not conceivable.

Thirdly, the opposed mark does not give rise to a specific meaning, whereas the cited mark has a meaning of “famous automobile brand owned by BMW”. If so, there will be any conceptual confusion.”

Even if the cited mark “MINI” has become famous and the goods in question are highly related to the goods bearing the cited mark administered by BMW, given the facts that the term “MINI” is not a coined word and the low degree of similarity between “MINI” and “DMINI”, the Board has no reason to believe that the consumers are likely to confuse a source of goods bearing the opposed mark “DMINI” with BMW.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to dismiss the entire opposition and declared the validity of the mark “DMINI” as status quo.

End of the TOKYO 2020 Olympic emblem dispute

Posted on

On March 12, 2025, the Japan IP High Court handed down a decision regarding the validity of TM Reg no. 6008759 for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Emblem owned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
[Court case no. Reiwa6(Gyo-ke)10057]

Tokyo 2020 Olympic Emblem

The official emblem of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics was scrapped in 2016 (see below left) and replaced with the new emblem (see below right) before the opening of the Olympics, as you recall.

Even after the Games closed without spectators in 2021, a year after originally scheduled to due to a global pandemic, the new official emblem was to face with another challenge at the Japan Patent Office (JPO) in 2022.

The contested new emblem was filed by the IOC for use on all goods and services in every class from 1 to 45 with the JPO on April 25, 2016. In the course of substantive examination, the mark was assigned to the Tokyo Olympic Committee (TOC). Subsequently, the JPO granted registration on December 7, 2017 (TM Reg no. 6008759). Upon the Olympic Games finalizing, it was re-assigned to the IOC in December 2021.

Invalidation action

A group of Japanese legal experts filed an application for a declaration of invalidity against the new Tokyo 2020 Olympic Emblem with the JPO on June 21, 2022. They claimed that the emblem should be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(vi), (vii), (x) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

The experts argued, inter alia, that the IOC failed to comply with Article 31(1) of the Trademark Law, which prohibits the licensing of a trademark registration to a third party given the mark was registered subject to Article 4(2).

Article 4(2) provides an exception to allow the registration of a trademark applied for by a non-profit organization engaged in activities in the public interest, even if the trademark is unregistrable under Article 4(1)(vi).

In this respect, the experts considered it illegal that the IOC granted a trademark license to the TOC, other organizers and sponsors. In fact, under the license, the TOC sent C&D letters based on TM Reg no. 6008759 to entities seeking to benefit from the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games in order to prevent ambush marketing.

In these circumstances, the contested mark should be declared invalid in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii) because the IOC had a bad faith intent to unjustifiably protect the profits of official sponsors without legal basis by harming the interests of other entities.

It should be noted that Article 31(1) was revised in 2019, one year after the registration of the contested mark. Now, the prohibition to license the registered mark under Article 4(2) no longer exists.

IP High Court decision

In its ruling, the IP High Court acknowledged the need to restrict ambush marketing, which deliberately attempts to persuade or mislead consumers into believing they are associated with a sporting mega-event, or to use their IP without permission.

The Court found that since the elimination of the restriction on granting a license for a mark registered under Article 4(2) came into effect immediately after the promulgation of the Trademark Law Revision in 2019, it would rather serve to promote the appropriate use of the famous trademark for the public interest and satisfy the intention behind the law.

Therefore, even if the IOC had licensed the contested mark to the TOC and official sponsors in order to prevent ambush marketing, it would be irrelevant to find that the contested mark should be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii) due to the likelihood of causing damage to public order or morality.

Trademark Squatter Seeking to Ruin Luxury Brand with Obscene Language

Posted on

In May 2022, the Japan IP High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, OMEGA S.A. The case concerns cancellation of TM Reg no. 6277280 for the word mark “OMECO” in Class 14 (watches) owned by a Japanese company, OMECO Co., Ltd.

In the complaint, OMEGA S.A. argued that the contested mark is likely to cause confusion with world-famous brand “OMEGA” when used on watches. The court declared cancellation of the contested mark, however, not because of the LOC, but the likelihood of damage to public order or morality based on Article 4(1)(vii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Do you think OMEGA S.A. is satisfied with the court’s decision?

As a matter of fact, the company continues to sell wristwatches bearing the mark “OMECO” even now.

https://omeco.buyshop.jp/

If the court ruled the case by finding a likelihood of confusion with OMEGA based on Article 4(1)(xv), the goods must be prohibited from selling because of trademark infringement or unfair competition. Ironically, the court decision encourages the company to promote watches bearing a vulgar, obscene, prurient and immoral mark by slightly changing famous luxury brands as shown below. The names have a vulgar, obscene and prurient meaning in Japanese.

https://omeco.buyshop.jp/

Not only the actual use, but the company is seeking trademark registration of these vulgar, obscene, lewd and immoral marks in Japan, which obviously intends to free-ride on famous luxury brands such as Cartier, PATEK PHILIPPE, HUBLOT, A. LANGE & SOHNE, RICHARD MILLE, BOTTEGA VENETA, ROLEX.

Recently, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) examiner issued an office action based on Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Trademark Law due to similarity to and likelihood of confusion with famous luxury brands.

It is anticipated that the company files a response to the office action and argue dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion by referring to the court decision since the rejection would affect their business.