カテゴリー: Article 4(1)(xi)

MEN IMPOSSIBLE is not IMPOSSIBLE

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the opposition filed by Impossible Foods Inc. against TM Reg no. 6856327 for the “men impossible” mark due to dissimilarity to earlier mark “IMPOSSIBLE”.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900260, decided on June 17, 2025]

Men impossible

The contested mark consists of the word “men impossible” and a device representing cooked noodles in a bowl with chopsticks (see below). A Japanese individual filed it with the JPO for use in relation to restaurant services in Class 43 on March 5, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-22440].

“MEN” means ‘noodles’ in Japanese.

The JPO granted registration of the mark on October 11, 2024, and published it for post-grant opposition on October 29, 2024.

Opposition by Impossible Foods

Before the lapse of a two-month statutory period counting from the publication date, Impossible Foods Inc., a U.S. corporation that develops plant-based substitutes for meat, dairy, and fish products, filed an opposition with the JPO on December 16, 2024.

Impossible Foods Inc. argued that the contested mark should be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law due to a close resemblance to its earlier TM Reg no. 6646654 for the word mark “IMPOSSIBLE” in standard character, which designates restaurant services in Class 43.

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 Opposition Board found the contested mark “men impossible” is dissimilar to the cited mark “IMPOSSIBLE” by stating that:

Visually, the contested mark and the cited mark differ by virtue of the presence or absence of figurative elements and the word “men,” and therefore relevant consumers are clearly capable of distinguishing two marks in appearance.

Aurally, the sound of “Men Impossible” arising from the contested mark and the sound “Impossible” from the cited mark differ in the presence or absence of the prefix sound “men,” so they are clearly distinguishable in terms of pronunciation.

Conceptually, the contested mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. In the meantime, the cited mark has a meaning of ‘not possible’. There is no risk of confusion in concept.

Therefore, the contested mark and the cited mark are obviously distinguishable in appearance and sound, and there is no risk of confusion in concept.

When considering the overall impression, memory, and associations evoked in the mind of relevant traders and consumers by means of the appearance, pronunciation, and concept of two marks, the Board has a reason to believe that the contested mark is dissimilar to and unlikely to cause confusion with the cited mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided that the contested mark is not subject to cancellation based on Article 4(1)(xi) even if the designated service of both marks are identical or similar.

META vs META READY

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s rejection of TM App no. 2022-6896 for the mark “META READY” with a device due to an error in identifying the dominant portion of the applied mark and its dissimilarity to IR no. 1281398 “META” owned by Meta Platforms, Inc.
[Appeal case no. 2024-19649, decided on June 10, 2025]

META/READY

Micro-Star INT’L CO., LTD., a Taiwanese company, filed a trademark application for the mark “META READY” with device (see below) for use on computers, computer software, computer servers and other computer-related goods in class 9 with the JPO on Jan 24, 2022 [TM App no. 2022-6896].

https://www.instagram.com/p/Ce5vp9IPDaH/

JPO examiner’s rejection

On September 10, 2024, the JPO examiner rejected the applied mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing IR no. 1281398 for the wordmark “META” in standard character owned by Meta Platforms, Inc.

In the refusal decision, the examiner stated that the literal element “META” is dominant in the applied mark. If so, the mark is confusingly similar to IR no. 1281398. Besides, the goods designated under the applied mark is identical or similar to the following goods of the cited mark in class 9.

Digital glasses that display augmented content that contain depth-sensing cameras used for creating digital content; software for displaying augmented content and  for creating digital content sold as an integral component of digital glasses; kits comprised of digital glasses that display augmented content that contain depth-sensing cameras used for creating digital content, software for displaying augmented content and for creating digital content sold as an integral component of digital glasses, external computer hard drives, USB cables and power cables.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on December 6, 2024 and argued dissimilarity of two marks.

Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board found that the applied mark should be considered globally, stating the following:

The applied mark consists of the word “META” in a bold font between two gray geometric figures with 3×6 grids, with the word “READY” written slightly smaller below.

Considering that respective words are balanced in the center, the applied mark gives the impression of visual integration as a whole. In addition, the sound derived from all the literal elements can be pronounced smoothly. Furthermore, neither “META” nor “READY” directly indicates the quality of the goods in question.

Given the cohesive composition, it is reasonable to hold that the applied mark can be understood as a coined word. Is difficult to find that any of its elements would give a strong and dominant impression as an identifier of a specific source of goods, or be omitted due to a lack of distinctiveness.

Taking the above into account, the Board believes that relevant traders and consumers are likely to recognize and perceive the applied mark as a whole, rather than dissecting its literal elements and focusing solely on the word “META” in actual commerce.

Based on the foregoing, the Board pointed out that the examiner erred in assessing the applied mark and concluded that the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited mark “META” from visual, aural and conceptual points of view.

TORNADO vs TORQNADO

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by GEMBALLA LIMITED against TM Reg no. 6849477 for the word mark “TORQNADO” for use on cars and motorcycles in class 12 due to dissimilarity to IR no. 1100655 for the word mark “TORNADO” that designates automobiles in class 12.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900257, decided on May 27, 2025]

TORQNADO

Suzuki Motor Corporation, a major Japanese automotive company, filed a trademark application for the word mark “TORQNADO” in standard character for use on cars and motorcycles in class 12 with the JPO on January 18, 2024. [TM App no. 2024-4189]

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action in the course of substantive examination and then granted registration of the mark on September 3, 2024.

Subsequently after registration [TM Reg no. 6849477], the mark was published for a post-grant opposition on October 9, 2024.

Opposition by GEMBALLA

Just before the lapse of two-month statutory opposition period, GEMBALLA LIMITED, a German car manufacturer with renowned experience in refining of Posche and McLaren sports cars, filed an opposition with the JPO on November 9, 2024.

In the opposition brief, GEMBALLA claimed cancellation of TM Reg no. 6849477 based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law because of similarity to their IR no. 1100655 for the word mark “TORNADO” that designates “Automobiles and parts thereof, particularly tuned automobiles and parts thereof; accessories for the aforementioned goods as far as included in this class; all aforementioned goods excluding tires” in class 12.

GEMBALLA argued the opposed mark “TORQNADO” is confusingly similar to the cited mark “TORNADO” in appearance and sound. Besides, all goods designated by the opposed mark are deemed similar.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board did not side with GEMBALLA and found both marks dissimilar by stating that:

Visual Comparison:

The presence or absence of the letter “Q” in the middle makes the respective marks distinguishable enough to reduce the likelihood of confusion.

Aural comparison:

The sounds of “TORQNADO” and “TORNADO” differ clearly in the presence or absence of the “ku” sound from the letter “Q.” This difference significantly impacts the overall pronunciation. It gives rise to a different tone and feeling of the sounds, thus making the two marks phonetically distinguishable.

Conceptual comparison:

The opposed mark does not have a specific meaning. Meanwhile, the cited mark has the meaning of “an extremely strong wind that blows in a circle.”  Therefore, both marks are unlikely to cause conceptual confusion.

Given both marks are dissimilar, the opposed mark should not be canceled based on Article 4(1)(xi) even if the goods in question are identical or similar.

JPO found BYOMA and BIYŌMA dissimilar marks

Posted on

In an invalidation action disputing the validity of TM Reg no. 6637032 for the word mark “BIYŌMA” in class 3 due to its similarity to the earlier IR no. 1633315 for the word mark “BYOMA”, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) found BYOMA and BIYŌMA to be dissimilar.
[Invalidation case no. 2023-890015, gazette issued on May 30, 2025]

TM Reg no. 6637032

The contested mark, consisting of the word “BIYŌMA” in a plain font (see below), was filed with the JPO for use on cosmetics of class 3 in particular and various goods in classes 21, 24, 25 and 30 on March 17, 2022, by TSUKAMONO CORPORATION. [TM App no. 2022-30868]

The JPO examiner notified a refusal ground that states the mark is unregistrable due to a conflict with IR no. 1633315 for word mark “BYOMA” based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law. The applicant filed a response in which they argued dissimilarity of mark.

Eventually, the examiner withdrew his refusal and granted protection of the mark on September 30, 2022.

The applicant promotes body cream, body soap, hand cream, and lip stick displaying the mark “BIYŌMA”.

https://biyoma.jp/

Invalidation action by BYOMA Limited

BYOMA Limited, the owner of IR no. 1633315 “BYOMA”, filed an application for a declaration of partial invalidation to the contested mark on March 14, 2023 with the JPO in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law, and disputed similarity between “BYOMA” and “BIYŌMA” in relation to cosmetics of class 3.

BYOMA Limited argued that the contested mark resembles the cited mark because it contains all of the letters that constitute the cited mark, and the difference in the second letter, “I,” is trivial. A conceptual comparison is neutral as both marks have any clear meaning. Besides, taking account of aural similarity, the contested mark should be considered similar to the cited mark.

JPO decision

On October 2, 2024, the JPO Invalidation Board dismissed the invalidation petition by stating that:

Visual Comparison

Although the contested mark and the cited mark contain the same letters “B,” “Y,” “O,” “M,” and “A”, there are differences in the presence or absence of the letter “I” in the second character and the hyphen in the letter “O.” These differences have a significant impact on the overall visual impression of the contested mark. Especially, when comparing the relatively short constituent characters of six and five letters. Therefore, both marks are clearly distinguishable in appearance.

Aural Comparison

There is a difference between “biyo” and “byo” in the initial sound, which is an important element in distinguishing the pronunciation. In the comparison of the short constituent sounds of four or three syllables, these differences affect the overall pronunciation of the two marks. Even when pronounced consecutively, the tone and feeling of the pronunciations differ to the extent relevant consumers can easily distinguish them phonetically.

Conceptual Comparison

The conceptual aspect does not have impact on the assessment of similarity, since both marks are meaningless.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided that the contested mark is dissimilar to and unlikely to cause confusion with the cited mark even when used on the goods in question.

JPO found “ARIS” dissimilar to “arivis” in trademark opposition

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition claimed by Carl Zeiss Microscopy GmbH against TM Reg no. 6846031 for word mark “AIRIS” due to dissimilarity to earlier IR no. 1566263 for word mark “arivis”.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900248, decided on May 13, 2025]

AIRIS

Appier Private Limited, a Singapore company, filed a trademark application for word mark “AIRIS” in connection with SaaS, computer programming and other computer software-related services in class 42 with the JPO on February 6, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-11487].

The JPO examiner granted protection of the applied mark and published it for a post-grant opposition on September 30, 2024 after registration [TM Reg no. 6846031].

Opposition by Carl Zeiss

On November 29, 2024, Carl Zeiss Microscopy GmbH, an owner of IR no. 1566263 for word mark “arivis” in standard that designates computer software-related goods and services in classes 9, 42, and 45, filed an opposition with the JPO and claimed cancellation of the mark “AIRIS” in contravention of 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 Opposition Board assessed similarity between “AIRIS” and “arivis” from visual, aural and conceptual points of view.

  • Visual similarity

Even if the alphabets that constitute the contested mark are included in the cited mark, the terms “AIRIS” and ‘arivis’ differ in the order and the number of the letters, and the presence or absence of the letter “v”. These differences have a significant impact on the overall visual impression of two marks, given both have relatively short character structures. Therefore, the marks are visually distinguishable.

  • Aural similarity

A comparison of the pronunciation of “AIRIS” and “arivis” reveals clear distinctions in the second and third sounds. Despite the presence of the vowel sound (i) in both sounds, the distinction between the second and third sounds has a substantial impact on the overall tone and feel. Consequently, when pronounced as a whole, there is no risk of confusion between the sounds, ensuring their clear distinction.

  • Conceptual similarity

A conceptual comparison is neutral because neither “AIRIS” nor “arivis” has any clear meaning.

Based on the foregoing, the Opposition Board noted:

Even if the contested mark and the cited mark cannot be compared in concept, there is no likelihood of confusion in appearance and sound. Therefore, taking into consideration the overall impression, memory, and associations given to traders and consumers by means of the appearance, pronunciation, and concept of both marks, the Board found a reason to believe that two marks are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion when used on the services in question.

Consequently, the JPO decided to dismiss the opposition and declared validity of the contested mark as the status quo.

Trademark dispute: “VOLKA” vs “VOLGA”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s rejection to TM App no. 2023-82305 for word mark “VOLKA” in class 34 on the ground of dissimilarity to TM Reg no. 5940973 for word mark “VOLGA” in class 35.
[Appeal case no. 2025-148, decided on May 7, 2025]

VOLKA

Fukashiro Corporation filed a trademark application for word mark “VOLKA” in standard character for use on hookahs, tobacco, electronic cigarettes, smokers’ articles, and matches in class 34 with the JPO on July 25, 20223 [TM App no. 2023-82305].

VOLGA

On May 31, 2024, the JPO examiner rejected the applied mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier TM Reg no. 5940973 for wordmark “VOLGA” in standard character that designates various services in class 35.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on August 30, 2024, and requested for cancellation of the rejection by arguing dissimilarity of mark.

JPO decision

At the outset, the JPO Appeal Board found the applied mark “VOLKA” does not give rise to any specific meaning since it is not a word on English dictionary and there is no common trade practice of actual use of the word. Meanwhile, the Board found the cited mark “VOLGA” has a meaning of ‘the longest ricer in Europe, stretching through Russia and flowing into the Caspian Sea’.

In light of the aforementioned findings, the Board made a comparative analysis of two marks from the perspectives of visual, aural and conceptual similarity.

Visually, although both marks share the four letters “VOL” at the beginning and “A” at the end, the fourth letters ‘K’ and “G” are different. Given that both marks consist of only five letters, the difference cannot be negligible from the overall impression. Relevant consumers would consider the respective marks represent a distinct word. Therefore, they are visually distinguishable.

Phonetically, there is difference in the sound of the unvoiced consonant ‘ka’ and the voiced consonant “ga” at the end of the word. Since both marks consist of only three sounds, which is an extremely short sound structure, the difference at the end of respective word has a remarkable impact on the overall sound, and the entire pronunciation gives rise to distinctive tone and feel.

Conceptually, there is no likelihood of confusion between the applied mark the cited mark because the applied mark has no meaning, whereas the cited mark gives rise to a meaning of ‘the Volga River’.

Therefore, the Board has a reason to believe the applied mark is dissimilar to, and unlikely to cause confusion with the cited mark when used on the goods in question.

Trademark dispute: “MARZY” vs “by MERZY”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) affirmed the examiner’s rejection to TM App no. 2023-54018 for word mark “by MERZY” in class 3 due to a conflict with TM Reg no. 6704955 for word mark “MARZY” in the same class 3.
[Appeal case no. 2025-148, decided on May 7, 2025]

TM App no. 2023-54018

MEFACTORY Co., Ltd., a South Korean cosmetic company, filed a trademark application for word mark “by MERZY” for use on cosmetics in class 3 with the JPO on May 18, 20223.

The cosmetic brand “MERZY,” which was born in South Korea, now attempts to attract Japanese consumers as well. The South Korean beauty market is valued at $25 billion, and ranked 5th in global cosmetic exports.

https://www.qoo10.jp/shop/MERZY

TM Reg no. 670495

On October 18, 2024, the JPO examiner rejected the applied mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier TM Reg no. 6704955 for wordmark “MARZY” in standard character that designates cosmetics in class 3 owned by Yugen Kaisha LIMPIO.

https://questlimpio.com/

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on January 7, 2025, and requested for cancellation of the rejection by arguing dissimilarity of mark.

In the appeal, the applicant argued inter alia the dissimilarity of sound between “MERZY” and “MARZY”.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board found that relevant consumers would consider the literal element “MERZY” as a dominant portion of the applied mark, given the common usage of the English word “by”.

Therefore, it is permissible to dissect into individual parts and assess similarity to the cited mark focusing on the word element “MERZY” of the applied mark.

The Board stated that the applied mark is likely to give rise to two sounds, ‘mɜː zi’ or ‘merzi’, based on the fact that the term “MERZY” is not a word on English dictionary. Regarding the cited mark “MARZY”, the Board found that it just gives rise to a sound of ‘mɜː zi’.

Based on the foregoing, the Board assessed both marks visually give a substantially similar impression because the term “MERZY” and “MARZY” consist of five letters and a difference in the second letter is trivial.

Even though both marks are neutral in concept, they give a substantially similar impression in appearance and share the same pronunciation. Taking into account the comprehensive impression, memory, and associations of both marks conceived in the mind of relevant traders and consumers, the Board has a reason to believe that both marks are similar to a high degree and likely to cause confusion when used in relation to the goods in question.

Similarity of trademark containing a similar star device

Posted on

In an appeal trial, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s rejection of TM App no. 2024-17220 for the mark F with a star device, finding that it was dissimilarity to earlier TM Reg no. 4105585 for the encircled star device mark.
[Appeal case no. 2024-18518, decided on April 30, 2025]

TM App no. 2024-17220

Fighters Sports & Entertainment Co., Ltd., an affiliate company of the Japanese professional baseball team “Hokkaido Nippon-Ham Fighters”, filed a trademark application for a mark consisting of the letter “F” and a blue-star device (see below) for use on various foods in class 29 and 30 with the JPO on February 21, 2024.

The applied mark is used to indicate a newly developed facilities and ES CON FIELD, a home stadium of Nippon-Ham Fighters in Hokkaido.

https://www.hkdballpark.com/

TM Reg no. 4105585

On August 1, 2024, the JPO examiner rejected the applied mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law due to its similarity to an earlier TM Reg no. 4105585 for an encircled star device mark in class 30.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on November 20, 2024, and requested cancellation of the examiner’s refusal by arguing dissimilarity of mark.

JPO decision

At the outset, the JPO Appeal Board found the literal element “F” of the applied mark per se would not play a role in identifying specific source because a single digit is commonly used to describe a model or code of the goods in question. If so, the star device can be dominant in the applied mark.

The Board further stated that the applied mark as a whole is clearly distinguishable from the cited mark by the presence or absence of the letter “F.”

Even when comparing the respective star devices, there are two distinguishing features. First, the cited mark has two longer lower protrusions. Second, the star device is represented in a circle. These differences are sufficient to find a lack of likelihood of confusion when they are compared at different times and locations.

An aural and conceptual comparison is neutral because neither the applied mark nor the cited mark has any clear meaning.

Considering that the two marks are not visually similar and cannot be compared in terms of pronunciation and concept, the Board believes that the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited mark. Therefore, there is less risk of confusion regarding the source of the goods in question when considering the overall impression and memory of the respective marks.

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.

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.