Article 4(1)(xi)

Samsung Unsuccessful in Trademark Opposition against BEAT GALAXY

Posted on2025年12月13日2025年12月31日

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].

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.

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

Posted on2025年11月22日2025年12月7日

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

COSME MUSEUM

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

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

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

Cosmetic Museum

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

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

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

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

JPO decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP High Court ruling

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

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

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

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

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

Trademark dispute: SUNRISE vs KILLER SUNRISE

Posted on2025年11月15日2025年11月24日

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

KILLER SUNRISE

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

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

Opposition by Viña Concha y Toro

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

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

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

JPO Decision

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

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

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

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

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

IP High Court ruling: STARBUCKS vs STARBOSS

Posted on2025年11月8日2025年11月16日

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

STARBOSS

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

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

The applicant promotes energy drinks bearing the applied mark.

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

JPO decision against the invalidation filed by Starbucks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP High Court Ruling

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

1. Similarity of the marks

– Visual comparison

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

– Aural comparison

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

– Conceptual comparison

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

2. Likelihood of confusion

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

JPO found “@knowledge” dissimilar to “KNOWLEDGE”

Posted on2025年10月31日2025年11月16日

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

@knowledge

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

KNOWLEDGE

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

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

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

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

JPO Appeal Board decision

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

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

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

ALVIERO MARTINI Defeated Over World Map Mark Dispute

Posted on2025年10月11日2025年10月13日

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

Japan TM Reg no. 6320074

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

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

Invalidation action by Alviero Martini

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

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

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

JPO decision

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

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

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

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

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

CHEMICAN vs CHEMI-CON

Posted on2025年10月4日2025年10月9日

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

CHEMICAN

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

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

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

Opposition by Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation

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

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

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

JPO decision

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

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

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

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

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

Trademark Dispute: FLOW3D vs Flow360

Posted on2025年9月27日2025年9月27日

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

Flow360

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

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

FLOW3D

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

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

JPO Decision

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

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

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

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

JPO decision: Gem Queen is Not Confusable with QUEEN for gems

Posted on2025年9月20日2025年9月27日

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) disaffirmed the examiner’s rejection to TM App no. 2024-4744 of wordmark “Gem Queen” for use on gems, jewelry, personal ornaments in Class 14 by finding dissimilarity to earlier trademark registration of wordmark “QUEEN” on the same goods.
[Appeal case no.2024-16517, decided on September 4, 2025]

Gem Queen

A Japanese individual filed a trademark application with the JPO for wordmark “Gem Queen” in standard character by designating ‘Precious metals; Unwrought and semi-wrought precious stones and their imitations; Key rings; Jewelry boxes; Trophies [prize cups] of precious metal; Commemorative shields of precious metal; Personal ornaments [jewelry]; Shoe ornaments of precious metal; Clocks and watches’ in Class 14 on Jan 19, 2024. [TM App no. 2024-4744]

On March 1, 2024, the applicant requested the JPO to accelerate examination procedure by demonstrating actual use of the applied-for mark on any of the designated goods.

QUEEN

The JPO examiner rejected the mark due to a conflict with earlier TM Reg no. 3332881 of wordmark “QUEEN” in Class 14 based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

In her refusal decision, the examiner stated that the element “Gem” in the mark merely corresponds to a generic term of the designated goods and therefore lacks, or possesses only very weak, distinctiveness as a source indicator. Accordingly, the “Queen” element is dominant in the mark as an indication of the origin. Therefore, in assessing the similarity between “Gem Queen” and “QUEEN”, it is permissible to focus the comparison on the “Queen” element. Consequently, the applied-for mark gives rise to the same pronunciation and concept with the cited mark.

On October 16, 2024, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection and argued dissimilarity of the marks.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board observed that the examiner erred in applying Article 4(1)(xi) by incorrectly finding the term “Queen” as a dominant element of the applied-for mark.

The Board noted that the constituent characters are presented in the same font, size, and spacing, and appear well-balanced and unified. The pronunciation “Gem Queen” can also be articulated smoothly in a single breath. Furthermore, the applied-for mark as a whole evokes the concept of a “queen of gems” or “jewel queen.” Additionally, no specific circumstances have been identified in the relevant industry dealing with the designated goods, such as “Gem” being widely used to indicate the quality (e.g., “jewel”) of the goods, or brand names in the form of “Gem ○○” being customarily abbreviated in trade by omitting “Gem” and using only the “○○” portion. Therefore, when the mark is presented as a whole, it is difficult to conclude that the element “Gem” would be disregarded, and the mark would be traded based on “Queen” alone. Rather, it is reasonable to consider the applied-for mark as an inseparable whole.

Based on the foregoing, the Board held that it is not permissible to separate the “Queen” portion from the applied-for mark and determine the similarity between the applied-for mark and the cited mark on that basis. In this respect, the examiner’s rejection should be overturned.

SAINT-CLAIR BY JOSEPH DUCLOS vs Saint Clair

Posted on2025年9月13日2025年9月22日

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s refusal of the word mark “SAINT-CLAIR BY JOSEPH DUCLOS,” finding it dissimilar to the cited mark “Saint Clair.”
[Appeal Case No. 2025-5675, Decision rendered September 8, 2025]

SAINT-CLAIR BY JOSEPH DUCLOS

MANUFACTURE JD (JOSEPH DUCLOS) filed an application for the word mark “SAINT-CLAIR BY JOSEPH DUCLOS” on December 22, 2023, designating perfumes, fragrances, cosmetics, and other goods in Class 3 [TM App. No. 2023-142233].

Saint Clair

On January 14, 2025, the JPO examiner refused the application under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law, citing earlier Reg. No. 6295331 for the word mark “Saint Clair” (together with its Japanese transliteration, arranged in two lines), which also covers the same goods in Class 3.

On April 14, 2025, JOSEPH DUCLOS filed an appeal against the refusal, arguing that the applied-for mark is dissimilar to the cited mark.

JPO Decision

The Board noted that the applied-for mark consists of five elements: “SAINT,” “CLAIR,” “BY,” “JOSEPH,” and “DUCLOS.” “SAINT” is a French word meaning “holy” or “sacred,” and “CLAIR” means “bright” or “light.” “BY” is a common English preposition, and “JOSEPH” is a male given name in English. “DUCLOS” is neither listed in dictionaries and nor widely recognized in Japan as a word with any specific meaning. Consequently, the Board found no significant difference in distinctiveness among the constituent terms in relation to the designated goods.

Further, although the entire pronunciation of the applied-for mark is somewhat long, it can nevertheless be articulated smoothly in a single utterance without difficulty.

An ex officio investigation did not reveal any circumstances suggesting that relevant traders or consumers would focus solely on the element “SAINT-CLAIR” when dealing with the goods at issue.

Accordingly, the Board held that consumers and traders would perceive the applied-for mark as an indivisible coined word in its entirety. It is therefore inappropriate to dissect and compare only the element “SAINT-CLAIR” with the cited mark when assessing similarity. In this respect, the examiner’s refusal was erroneous in its application of Article 4(1)(xi), having improperly isolated the element “SAINT-CLAIR.” The decision of refusal was therefore reversed.