カテゴリー: Article 4(1)(xv)

Audemars Piguet Unsuccessful in Opposition to Trademark “ROYAL OAK”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Audemars Piguet Holding SA (AP), a Swiss luxury watchmaker, against TM Reg no. 6754358 for wordmark “ROYAL OAK” in class 33 due to insufficient recognition of “ROYAL OAK” luxury watches among general consumers.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900016, decided on October 16, 2024]

Opposed mark

On May 12, 2023, St. Michael Wine and Spirits Co., Ltd. filed an application for the registration of a word mark “ROYAL OAK” in standard character, in connection with whisky, spirits [beverages], liqueurs, and western liquors (class 33) with the JPO.

The applicant sells whisky and soda in cans bearing the mark “ROYAL OAK”.

The JPO did not raise any office action in the course of substantive examination and published it for a post-grant opposition on November 24, 2023.

Opposition by Audemars Piguet

On January 23, 2024, before the lapse of a two-month statutory period counting from the publication date, AP filed an opposition and claimed cancellation of the applied mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

AP argued that “ROYAL OAK” has been well known for AP’s luxury watches even among relevant consumers of the goods in question. Allegedly, “ROYAL OAK” luxury watches have been promoted for sale in Japan since 1972. Annual sales exceed JPY 8 billion on average in the past six years. Each year, AP spent more than JPY400 million on advertisement and promotion in Japan. Due to the high degree of reputation and popularity of “ROYAL OAK” luxury watches, consumers are likely to consider whiskey and western spirits bearing the “ROYAL OAK” mark as coming from the opponent or other business entity economically or systematically connected with AP.

JPO decision

The Opposition Board admitted a certain degree of recognition of the opponent’s “ROYAL OAK” among the consumers who have purchased or interest in luxury watches. However, the Board questioned a high degree of recognition among general consumers because the opponent’s watches are priced at a premium, with relatively low sales volumes and a limited distribution network in Japan. There are about 50 stores only that engage in the resale of the “ROYAL OAK” watches in Japan in addition to the AP official salon or shop. Presumably, lots of general consumers have seldom visited these stores and seen the “ROYAL OAK” watches.

Besides, the Board found whisky, spirits [beverages], liqueurs, and western liquors do not closely relate to luxury watches.

Given that the AP’s “ROYAL OAK” has not acquired a high degree of recognition among relevant consumers and a low degree of relatedness between the goods, the Board has no reason to find a likelihood of confusion between the opposed mark and the opponent business even if both marks are same.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded AP’s allegations groundless and decided to maintain the registration of the opposed mark.

Volkswagen Lost in Trademark Opposition over VW emblem

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition claimed by Volkswagen AG against TM Reg no. 6776072 for a device mark in class 25 due to dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with famous VW emblem.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900086, decided on October 9, 2024]

Contested mark

SAKAIYA PLANNING INC. filed a trademark application for a device mark (see below) in connection with clothing, footwear, garters, sock suspenders, suspenders for clothing, waistbands, belts [clothing] of class 25 with the JPO on June 6, 2023.

According to the applicant’s website, the applied mark is used in conjunction with “ANNA MALIA”.

The JPO examiner did not issue any office actions and granted protection of the mark on January 30, 2024. Accordingly, it was published for a post-grant opposition on February 14, 2024.

Opposition by Volkswagen

On April 12, 2024, German car giant Volkswagen AG filed an opposition and claimed cancellation of the contested mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and 8(1) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier IR no. 1555245 for their iconic VW emblem (see below) covering clothing, footwear and other goods in class 25.

Volkswagen argued that the contested mark consists of monogrammed letters, “V” and “W” represented in a circle. Therefore, where the mark is observed upside down, it looks closely similar to the VM emblem. Customers have been accustomed to observing clothing and other goods in question from various angles. In this respect, even though conceptual and phonetical comparisons are neutral as neither the contested mark nor the VM emblem have any clear sound and meaning, both marks should be considered similar because of a high degree of visual similarity.

Besides, the VW emblem has acquired substantial popularity and reputation as a source indicator of famous automobile maker, Volkswagen. Thus, it is highly likely that relevant traders and consumers confuse the source of the goods in question bearing the contested mark with Volkswagen or a business entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent.

JPO decision

The Opposition Board found that the VW emblem has become famous for a source indicator of opponent by taking into consideration of the facts that opponent’s cars with the VW emblem have been continuously imported to Japan since 1953 and ranked in the top 3 of new imported automobile registrations for the past three years.

In the meantime, the Board denied visual similarity between the contested mark and the VM emblem by stating that:

The mountainous lines in the circle of the contested mark are too stylized to be recognized as the representation of characters from its overall composition. Therefore, it can be seen to represent a geometric figure as a whole.

Meantime, the V-shaped line and the W-shaped line of the cited mark do not overlap, and both ends of the V-shaped line and the W-shaped line neatly overlap with the circle.

These differences give rise to a distinctive visual impression from their overall appearance, which can be sufficiently distinguishable when observed at a distance.

Given a low degree of similarity between the marks, the Board has a reason to believe that relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse a source of goods in question bearing the contested mark with Volkswagen.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found the opposition groundless and decided not to cancel the contested mark.

BULLDOG vs GREEN BULLLDOG

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition against TM Reg no. 6724674 for the wordmark “GREEN BULLDOG” claimed by DAVIDE CAMPARI – MILANO N.V. on the grounds of dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with earlier IR no. 1141768 for the wordmark “BULLDOG” for use on gin in Class 33.
[Opposition No. 2023-900229, decided on October 1, 2024]

GREEN BULLDOG

On April 15, 2022, Green Wave Unlimited Japan Co., Ltd (GWUJ) filed a trademark application with the JPO for the word mark “GREEN BULLDOG” and its Japanese transliteration arranged in two lines in connection with various goods in Classes 3, 5, and 33, including gin (Cl. 33) [TM App No. 2022-44073].

The applicant sells CBD products bearing the contested mark.

https://www.greenbulldog.jp/

The JPO examiner granted protection of the contested mark on June 2, 2023.

BULLDOG

DAVIDE CAMPARI – MILANO N.V. filed a partial opposition to the contested mark in respect of Western spirits, alcoholic fruit beverages, Japanese shochu-based beverages in Class 33 within the two-month statutory period from the date of publication on August 17, 2023, claiming that “GREEN BULLDOG” should be partially cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(x), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing its own earlier IR no. 1141768 for the word mark “BULLDOG” in Class 33.

CAMPARI argued that since “BULLDOG” gin has achieved a high degree of recognition among relevant consumers and traders in Japan and abroad, the literal part of “BULLDOG” plays a dominant role in identifying the source of the contested mark when used in relation to the goods in question. If so, both marks should be considered similar and consumers are likely to confuse a source of alcoholic beverages bearing the contested mark with CAMPARI or “BULLDOG” gin.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board did not allow a certain degree of recognition of the cited mark due to insufficient evidence provided by CAMPARI.

With respect to the similarity of the mark, the Opposition Board found that both marks are clearly distinguishable from appearance because the contested mark consists of alphabets and Japanese katakana characters arranged in two lines. On the other hands, the cited mark does not contain Japanese katakana characters and is not arranged in two lines.

Aurally, “BULLDOG” and “GREEN BULLDOG” are distinguishable because of a clear difference in the prefix sound.

A conceptual comparison is noteworthy as each mark evokes a different meaning.

Based on the above findings, the Board found that the two marks were dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion when used for the goods in question.

Consequently, the Board decided to reject the opposition in its entirety and to maintain the contested mark as the status quo.

BVLGARI Defeated with TM Opposition over “SERPENTI” Collection

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition claimed by BULGARI S.P.A. against TM Reg no. 6629637 for wordmark “Serpent Eternal” in class 14 due to dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with Italian luxury fashion brand, Bvlgari “Serpenti” Collection.
[Opposition case no. 2022-900520, decided on September 20, 2024]

Contested mark

NEW ART CIMA Co., Ltd., a Japanese jeweler, filed trademark application for wordmark “Serpent Éternel” and its Japanese transliteration arranged in two lines (see below) for use on jewelry, rings, personal ornaments, precious metal, watches and other goods in class 14 with the JPO on May 18, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-55932).

Two months later, the applicant unveiled a new line of diamond rings featuring the snake motif.

https://www.exelco.com/bridal_jewelry/marriagering/serpent-eternel.php

The JPO granted protection of the applied mark without raising any refusal ground (TM Reg no. 6629637) and published it for a post-grant opposition on October 27, 2022.

Opposition by Bvlgari

BULGARI S.P.A., an Italian luxury fashion house, filed an opposition against the contested mark with the JPO on December 15, 2022, and claimed cancellation in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

BULGARI alleged that the contested mark is similar to their luxury jewelry brand “Serpenti” that has been renowned for the iconic snake motif, and thus likely to cause confusion when used on the designated goods in class 14 by citing the following trademarks registered on the same class.

  • TM Reg no. 6614600 “SERPENTI“
  • IR no. 1319881 “SERPENTI SEDUTTORI“
  • IR no. 1323844 “SERPENTI INCANTATI“
  • IR no. 1331470 “SERPENTI HYPONOTIC“
  • IR no. 1332000 “SERPENTI FOREVER“
  • IR no. 1376153 “SERPENTI VIPER“
https://www.bulgari.com/ja-jp/collection/serpenti.html

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board questioned a high degree of recognition of the mark “Serpenti” per se among relevant consumers in Japan because lots of presence in magazines, advertisings, and web articles for the “Serpenti” collection accompany with famous luxury brand “BVLGARI” or “BVLGARI.COM”. The Board pointed out that no commercial records were submitted regarding the sales and market share of the collection.

Comparing the marks, the Board found the contested mark is distinguishable from the cited marks in appearance because none of them have visual arrangement in two lines. Although the initial sound produced by the prefix “ser” is identical, the subsequent sound is different, thereby establishing that the contested mark is clearly distinguishable from the cited marks in pronunciation. A conceptual comparison is neutral as neither the contested mark nor the cited marks have any clear meaning.

In light of the aforementioned findings, the Board has determined that the contested mark is not similar to any of the cited marks. Therefore, even if the goods in question are identical or similar to those of the cited marks, the contested mark shall not be subject to Article 4(1)(xi).

Given the low degree of similarity between the marks and the uncertain degree of recognition of the cited marks, the Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of goods in question bearing the cited mark with BVLGARI. Therefore, the contested mark shall not be cancelled under Article 4(1)(xv).

Consequently, the Board did not align with BVLGARI and decided to dismiss the entire opposition against the contested mark.

PAGANI Lost Trademark Opposition Against PAGANI DESIGN

Posted on

PAGANI S.p.A. lost in a bid to oppose TM Reg no. 6731316 for word mark “PAGANI DESIGN” in class 14 as the JPO denied a likelihood of confusion with Italian sports car brand “PAGANI”.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900251, decided on September 3, 2024]

PAGANI DESIGN

The contested mark, consisting of word “PAGANI DESIGN” in standard character, was filed by a Chinese company for use on watches in class 14 with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on August 31, 2022.
The watches bearing the contested mark have been distributed via the internet.

Capture from https://pagani-design.co.jp/

In the course of substantive examination, the JPO examiner issued an office action based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing senior IR no. 979660 for wordmark “PAGANI” covering horological and chronometric instruments of class 14.

As a countermeasure, the applicant filed a non-use cancellation action against the cited mark in order to overcome the examiner’s office action.

Since IR no. 979660 was partially cancelled because PAGANI could not demonstrate actual use of the mark “PAGANI” in connection with the goods in question for the past three years at all [Cancellation case no. 2022-670054], the examiner withdrew her refusal and granted registration of the contested mark on August 25, 2023. The JPO registered the contested mark on August 30, 2023 and published it for a post-grant opposition on September 7, 2023.

Opposition by PAGANI

Italian sports car manufacturer, PAGANI, filed an opposition against the mark “PAGANI DESIGN” with the JPO on November 7, 2023, shortly before the lapse of the two-month statutory period counting from the publication date.

In the opposition, PAGANI argued that the contested mark “PAGANI DESIGN” should be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law because the relevant consumers, especially those who like sports cars and hyper cars, are likely to confuse a source of watches bearing the contested mark with the opponent, well known as an Italian manufacturer of the prestigious high-end sports cars PAGANI.

Capture from https://www.sky-g.org/pagani/

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board questioned a high degree of popularity and reputation of the opponent mark “PAGANI” among relevant consumers by stating that:

The produced evidences show that in Japan, the public gets to see the opponent cars in 2013 for the first time, and from 2020, the cars were displayed by the authorized import car dealers in their showrooms located in Kobe and Tokyo. However, the number of “Pagani Huayra” sold in Japan, only two units, is extremely small. It is undeniable that most of Japanese consumers has not purchased the opponent cars.

Taking account of several presence in magazines and events at major motor car races in Japan, the opponent mark “PAGANI” has obtained a certain degree of recognition among the consumers who have a high interest to automobiles. However, the evidence is insufficient to find a high degree of recognition of the opponent mark among relevant consumers in question.

Given the mark “PAGANI” has not acquired a high degree of recognition, the Board has no reason to find that the consumers consider the term “PAGANI” as a dominant element to indicate a source of the contested mark.

Moreover, cars are rarely related to watches by nature, purpose and consumers.

Therefore, a mere fact that the contested mark contains the term “PAGANI” is not enough to find a likelihood of confusion based on the above findings.

As a conclusion, the Board dismissed the opposition entirely.

“Uber Finish” Causes No likelihood of confusion with “Uber”?

Posted on

In an appeal trial against the examiner’s refusal to TM App no. 2023-19561 for word mark “Uber Finish”, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to reverse the refusal by finding unlikelihood of confusion with trademark “Uber”.
[Appeal case no. 2024-4656, decided on September 3, 2024]

Uber Finish

A Japanese individual filed a trademark application for wordmark “Uber Finish” in standard character for use on adult dating services and others of class 45 in the field of adult entertainment business with the JPO on February 24, 2023.

Uber

On January 4, 2024, the JPO examiner rejected the mark on following grounds.

Article 4(1)(viii)

The examiner pointed out that the applied mark “Uber Finish” contains the term “Uber” that is identical with a famous abbreviation of the global company Uber Technologies Inc.
Provided that the applicant has not obtained an approval to register the applied mark in Japan from the company, it is not registrable under Article 4(1)(viii) of the Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Unquestionably, the term “Uber” is identical with a famous mark “Uber” that has been used by the global company Uber Technologies Inc. on ride-sharing services and food delivery services prior to the filing of the applied mark. Accordingly, it is not registrable under Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law because relevant consumers of the service in question are likely to confusion a source of the services bearing the applied mark “Uber Finish” with Uber Technologies or other business entity systematically or economically connected with Uber.

The applicant filed an appeal against the refusal on March 18, 2024 and argued registrability of the applied mark.

JPO decision

To my surprise, the JPO Appeal Board denied famousness of the mark “Uber” as an abbreviation of Uber Technologies Inc., even though they admitted the company has operated ride-hailing and food delivery services in the name of “Uber Taxi” and “Uber Eats”.

Based on the above finding, the Board found the applied mark does not contain a famous abbreviation of the company name, Uber Technologies Inc. Therefore, the examiner erroneously applied Article 4(1)(viii) to the case.

The Board found the mark “Uber Finish” and “Uber” dissimilar by stating that:

“From appearance, the marks share the word “Uber” at the beginning of the word, but the difference in the word “Finish” that follows makes them different words as a whole, and therefore, it is easy to distinguish them.
Although the four sounds of “Uber” at the beginning of the word may be common, the difference in the sound of “Finish” at the end of the word makes the overall tone and impression different, so it is easy to distinguish two marks.
A conceptual comparison is neutral as neither “Uber Finish” not “Uber” have any clear meaning.
Taking a global account of visual and aural distinctions, average consumers would consider them as different trademarks to indicate a different source respectively.”

Besides, the business managed by Under Technologies Inc. is remotely associated with the services in question, namely, adult entertainment services. If so, relevant consumers with an ordinary care are unlikely to confuse a source of services bearing the applied mark with Uber Technologies Inc. In this respect, the examiner made an error in applying Article 4(1)(xv).

Consequently, the Board decided to overturn the examiner’s refusal and grant registration of the applied mark.

JPO decision: “PENINSULA HILLS” unlikely to cause confusion with “The Peninsula”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s refusal and granted registration of the word mark “PENINSULA HILLS” written in Japanese Katakana characters in Classes 36 and 43, finding no likelihood of confusion with a world-renowned hotel “The Peninsula”.
[Appeal case no. 2023-4720, decided on July 25, 2024]

PENINSULA HILLS

CF-1 Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application with the JPO on January 7, 2022 for the word mark “PENINSULA HILLS” written in Japanese Katakana characters (see below) for use in, among other things, real estate services in Class 36 and hotel and restaurant services in Class 43 (TM App No. 2022-1353).

The Peninsula

The JPO examiner decided to reject the applied mark “PENINSULA HILLS” by finding a likelihood of confusion with a world-renowned hotel “The Peninsula” because the mark contains the term “PENINSULA”, which is highly recognized by consumers as an abbreviation of the luxury hotel, based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law on December 6, 2022.

To contest the rejection, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection with the JPO on March 3, 2023.

JPO Appeal Board decision

To my surprise, the JPO Appeal Board questioned a high degree of recognition of the hotel “The Peninsula” by stating that:

“The Peninsula Tokyo” is the only hotel commercially operated by The Hongkong Shanghai Hotels, Limited in Japan. If so, the number of users is quite limited. Even if there are hotels with the name “The Peninsula” operated by the company in foreign countries and then Japanese travelers may stay the hotels, it is insufficient to find a high recognition of the hotel to average consumers since there is no objective data regarding the number of users, its sales, and the ratio of Japanese users and sales.

Therefore, the Board has no reason to believe that the term “PENINSULA” is widely recognized by consumers in Japan as an abbreviation for the hotels managed by the company.

In a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the Board found the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited mark “The Peninsula”.

The applied mark and the cited mark differ significantly in appearance due to the difference in the number of letters and the presence of the word “HILLS”. Furthermore, the difference in the number of syllables and the presence of the sound “HILLS” make the pronunciations easily distinguishable. Therefore, the relevant consumers and traders will be able to distinguish between the two marks are will consider them to be dissimilar because of the clear difference in the overall impression.

Given no high recognition of the hotel “The Peninsula” and low degree of similarity to the applied mark, the Board finds no reason to believe the applied mark may cause confusion with the cited mark when used in relation to the services in question.

In view of the foregoing, the Board held that the examiner had errored in applying Article 4(1)(xv), and decided to grant protection to the applied mark.

Trademark Opposition: FITBIT vs Fitbeing

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Google LLC in an opposition against TM Reg no. 6715471 for wordmark “Fitbeing” in class 14 by finding dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with “Fitbit” wearable devices.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900195, decided on June 28, 2024]

“Fitbeing”

Wordmark “Fiteing” was applied for registration in relation to “clocks and watches; watch bands and straps; stopwatches; watch cases [parts of watches]; clocks and watches, electric; chronometric instruments; presentation boxes for watches” in class 14 by a Chinese company with the JPO on January 4, 2023 (TM App no. 2023-172).

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action to the mark and granted protection on June 28, 2023. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on July 18, 2023.

Opposition by Google LLC

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Google LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on August 31, 2023.

Google argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for the wordmark “FITBIT” that has allegedly become famous as a source indication of Google’s wearable devices.

Google argued that due to the same spelling that starts with “FITB”, relevant consumers with an ordinary care would consider the opposed mark “Fitbeing” confusingly similar to the cited mark “FITBIT” from visual, aural and conceptual points of view.

By taking int consideration the high degree of reputation and popularity of the mark “FITBIT”, it is likely that the consumers would confuse a source of goods in question bearing the opposed mark with Google or their devices.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that, considering the evidence submitted, the mark “FITBIT” has not been widely recognized among the consumers to indicate Google’s wearable devices even if some of them may have known.

Secondly, the Board assessed the similarity of marks and states:

  • Comparing the marks “Fitbeing” and “FITBIT” visually, although they have the same initial letter “Fitb (FITB)”, there is a clear difference in the endings “ing” and “IT” and the number of letters is different from 8 to 6. Therefore, the two marks are visually different.
  • As regards pronunciation, although both marks have the same initial sound ‘fitbi’, they differ in the ending ‘-ing’ and ‘it’ and the number of sounds is not as long (8 and 6 sounds). This difference would make a meaningful difference in the overall pronunciation.
  • The conceptual comparison is not possible because both marks have no meaning.
  • Accordingly, the Board has reason to believe that both marks are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion, taking into account the overall consideration as well as the impressions, memories, associations of the consumers.

In light of the foregoing, the Board dismissed the entire opposition and granted status quo protection to the mark “Fitbeing” in class 14.

Guerlain Unsuccessful Opposition to “MITSOUKO” mark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Guerlain, a legendary French perfume house, against TM Reg no. 6734165 for wordmark “mitsouko” in class 44 due to unlikelihood of confusion with perfume “MITSOUKO” by Guerlain.
[Opposition case no. 2023-90025, decided on June 27, 2024]

“mitsouko”

Yugen Kaisha AMERICA, a Japanese business entity, filed a trademark application for wordmark “mitsouko” in standard character for use on “beauty salon services, barbershops, massage, dietary and nutritional guidance, therapy services, rental of apparatus and instruments for use in beauty salons or barbers’ shops, providing medical information, manicuring, hair implantation” in class 44 with the JPO on March 22, 2023 (TM App no. 2023-30416).

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action to the mark and granted protection on September 5, 2023. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on September 15, 2023.

Opposition by Guerlain

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Guerlain, a legendary French perfume house, filed an opposition against the opposed mark on November 13, 2023.

Guerlain argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits the registration of trademarks that are likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.

Guerlain contended that given the remarkable reputation and popularity of the perfume “MITSOUKO” by Guerlain and close association between perfume and the services in question, relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of services bearing the opposed mark with Guerlain.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that, considering the evidence submitted, the mark “MITSOUKO” may be recognized by persons having a deep knowledge of perfume, but there is a reasonable doubt whether the mark is widely known among relevant consumers to indicate the source of Guerlain perfume.

In addition, in view of the low degree of relatedness between beauty salon services, barbershops, massage, etc. and “perfume”, even if both marks are almost identical, it is unlikely that traders and consumers at the sight of the opposed mark used in relation to the service in question will associate or recall the cited mark, and consider a source of the services from an entity economically or systematically connected with Guerlain.

Therefore, the Board has no reason to believe the opposed mark shall be subject to Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

Even if the applicant has applied for the opposed mark with knowledge of Guerlain’s perfume “MITSOUKO”, the fact is insufficient to infer that the company has the purpose of making unfair profits or the purpose of causing harm to others. The submitted evidence does not reveal any fact to demonstrate a malicious intention by the applicant. If so, the opposed mark shall not be cancelled under Article 4(1)(xix).

Based on the above findings, the Board conclude that the opposition was without merit and thus granted protection to the opposed mark as the status quo.