Composite mark

JPO Decision: Trademark “Dear U plus” dissimilar to “dear U”

Posted on2025年1月4日2025年1月13日

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s refusal and granted registration of TM App no. 2023-99199 for wordmark “Dear U plus” by finding dissimilarity to earlier marks, “dear U” and “DEAR YOU”.
[Appeal Case no. 2024-13602, decided on December 12, 2024]

TM App no. 2023-99199

Fanplus, Inc. filled a trademark application for wordmark “Dear U plus” in standard character for use on goods and services in classes 9, 35, 41 and 42 with the JPO on September 6, 2023.

Article 4(1)(xi)

On June 3, 2024, the JPO examiner rejected the applied mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier TM Reg nos. 6570375 “dear U” (classes 9, 38, 41, and 45) and 6756169 “DEAR YOU” (classes 20, 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 35, and 43).

In the refusal, the examiner asserted that the word “plus” is often used in conjunction with a source indicator to represent that the quality of the goods or services offered is more advanced or improved than that of existing goods or services. Under the circumstances, relevant consumers would consider the word “plus” less distinctive in connection with the goods and services in question. Therefore, the “Dear U” element is dominant in the applied mark. If so, it is reasonable to conclude that the applied mark is aurally and conceptually similar to the cited marks.

JPO Appeal Board decision

The applicant filed an appeal against the examiner’s refusal with the JPO on August 23, 2024, and argued dissimilarity of mark.

The JPO Appeal Board found that the applied mark “Dear U plus” did not have a specific meaning and would be recognized as a whole, taking into account a visual configuration represented by the same font and a less redundant pronunciation.

In assessing similarity of mark, the Board held:

The applied mark is visually distinguishable from the cited marks because of the presence of the term “plus” and the difference between the letter “U” and “YOU”. Furthermore, there are differences in the upper and lower case of the words “Dear,” “dear,” and “DEAR”.

Aurally, even though the applied mark and the cited marks contain the same sound “dɪr-juː”, the whole sounds are distinguishable because the difference in the suffix sound “plʌs” makes the overall tone and nuance of respective mark significantly different.

The conceptual aspect does not have impact on the assessment as the applied mark has no specific meaning.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found both marks dissimilar and held that the examiner erroneously applied Article 4(1)(xi). Consequently, the JPO decided to overturn the examiner’s refection.

Top 10 Trademark News in Japan, 2024

Posted on2024年12月29日2025年2月9日

As the year 2024 comes to an end, it is a good time to share the top 10 trademark news in Japan by counting the total number of likes on the Linkedin “Like” Button.

1: Japan IP High Court said No to registering the color of Hermes packaging

The Japan IP High Court ruled to dismiss Herme’s appeal against the JPO decision that rejected Hermes packaging color due to a lack of inherent and acquired distinctiveness.

Japan IP High Court said No to registering the color of Hermes packaging.

2: Can a ‘Letter of Consent’ guarantee successful trademark registration in Japan?

The revised Japan Trademark Law will come into effect on April 1, 2024, introducing the “Letter of Consent” as a means to overcome conflicts with earlier trademark registrations.

Can a ‘Letter of Consent’ guarantee successful trademark registration in Japan?

3: COCO vs. KOKO

In a recent administrative decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) found that the trademarks “CoCo” and “koko” are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion.

COCO vs. KOKO

4: CHANEL defeated in Trademark Opposition against “COCOCHI”

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) handed a loss to Chanel SARL in trademark opposition against TM Reg no. 6674710 for the “COCOCHI” mark by finding unlikelihood of confusion with “COCO”.

CHANEL defeated in Trademark Opposition against “COCOCHI”

5: ZARA Unsuccessful Opposition against TM “LAZARA”

On April 22, 2024, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (INDITEX), owner of the fashion brand “ZARA”, against TM Reg no. 6699667 for word mark “LAZARA” in classes 25 due to dissimilar marks and unlikelihood of confusion with “ZARA”.

ZARA Unsuccessful Opposition against TM “LAZARA”

6: CHANEL Lost in Trademark opposition against “COCOBABY”

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with CHANEL in an opposition against TM Reg no. 6650252 for wordmark “COCOBABY” in class 25 by finding dissimilarity of mark between “COCOBABY” and “COCO”.

CHANEL Lost in Trademark opposition against “COCOBABY”

7: Trademark Dispute: Chateau Mouton Rothschild vs MOUTON

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) declared invalidation of TM Reg no. 6090508 for wordmark “MOUTON” in classes 35 and 43 due to a likelihood of confusion with famous mark “Mouton” as a source indicator of Chateau Mouton Rothschild, one of the most famous wine estates in the world.

Trademark Dispute: Chateau Mouton Rothschild vs MOUTON

8: Hermes Victory with Invalidating Birkin Lookalike Design

The Japan IP High Court has ruled in favor of Hermes in a dispute over the validity of Design Reg no. 1606558 by finding a likelihood of confusion with Hermes.

Hermes Victory with Invalidating Birkin Lookalike Design

9: Trademark dispute: VALENTINO GARAVANI vs GIANNI VALENTINO

In a trademark opposition claimed by Valentino S.p.A. against TM Reg no. 6550051 for the GIANNI VALENTINO mark, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to cancel the registration due to a conflict with earlier IR no. 975800 for the VALENTINO GARAVANI mark.

Trademark dispute: VALENTINO GARAVANI vs GIANNI VALENTINO

10: Japan IP High Court gives Green Light to 3D “Godzilla” shape as Trademark

On October 30, 2024, the Japan IP High Court disaffirmed the administrative decision by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) not to register the 3D shape of the eponymous character from the film “Shin Godzilla” as a trademark.

Japan IP High Court gives Green Light to 3D “Godzilla” shape as Trademark

Trademark dispute: UNITED vs UNITED GOLD

Posted on2024年12月21日2024年12月28日

In a dispute over the similarity of the marks “UNITED” and “UNITED GOLD” in connection with apparel, the Japan IP High Court upheld the JPO decision and found that both marks were dissimilar.
[Court case no. Reiwa6(Gyo-ke)10066, decided on December 10, 2024]

UNITED GOLD

Nishitomi Shoji Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on January 17, 2022 for the word mark “UNITED GOLD” in standard character for use on apparel in class 25 and retail services for apparel in class 35.

The applicant promotes men’s suits bearing the applied mark via internet.

In accordance with a request for accelerated examination from the applicant based on the actual use of the mark on any one of the designated goods and services, the JPO carried out a substantive examination and registered the mark on March 25, 2022 [TM Reg No. 6534957].

Invalidation action

On December 15, 2023, Howard Corporation, an owner of earlier TM Reg no. 2053119 “UNITED” in class 25, filed an application for a declaration of invalidity against the mark “UNITED GOLD” with the JPO in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law due to its similarity to earlier trademark “UNITED”.

However, the JPO Invalidation Board found “UNITED GOLD” to be dissimilar to “UNITED” and therefore dismissed the invalidation action on June 17, 2024 [Invalidation Case No. 2023-890089].

To challenge the JPO decision, Howard filed an appeal with the IP High Court on July 10, 2024, claiming that the JPO erred in finding that the contested mark “UNITED GOLD” should be assessed in its entirety.

In the compliant, Howard argued that the term “GOLD” has a low degree of distinctiveness in relation to the goods and services in question. On the other hand, the term “UNITED” is highly distinctive because of its meaning. If so, the term “UNITED” plays a dominant role in identifying a source of the contested mark

IP High Court ruling

The IP High Court, at the outset, referred to the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 which established the criterion to grasp a composite mark in its entirety in the assessment of similarity of the mark.

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

Based on the criteria, the court found that contested mark shall be assessed in its entirety on the following grounds:

From appearance and meaning, there is no reasonable ground to find “UNITED” and “GOLD” shall be recognized individual and separable.
In conjunction with clothing of class 25, more than 150 trademarks that contain the term “UNITED”, e.g. “UNITED ARROWS”, “UNITED COLORS OF BENETTON”, “UNITED TOKYO”, “UNITED DOORS”, are registered with the JPO in the name of third party. These facts suggest that the term “UNITED” is also lowly distinctive in relation to apparel.
Even if there are actual examples in which the term ‘GOLD’, when combined with another distinctive term, implies a high quality of the goods, it would be anything but convincing to find that the term ‘UNITED’ plays a dominant role in identifying the goods and services bearing the contested mark, given that, as stated above, the term ‘UNITED’ has a low degree of distinctiveness.

Based on the foregoing, the judges concluded that the JPO did neither err in comparing both marks as a whole nor applying Article 4(1)(xi).

Trademark Parody case : Champion vs Nyanpion

Posted on2024年12月14日2024年12月20日

On Novem 20, 2024, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) handed a win to HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC in trademark invalidation action against TM Reg no. 6368388 for the mark “Nyanpion” with a cat face logo due to similarity to the famous apparel brand “Champion.”
[Invalidation case no. 2022-890045]

Contested mark

A Japanese individual applied a composite mark consisting of a stylized word “Nyanpion” and a cat face logo (see below) for use on apparel, headgear, footwear, sports shoes, and sportswear in class 25 with the JPO on August 25, 2020. “Nyan” is the sound cats make in Japan. Because of it, “Nyanpion” easily reminds us of a combination of cat sounds and “Champion”.

T-shirts, sweats, hoodies, and tote bags bearing the Nyanpion mark have been promoted for sale with a catchword of “Champion” parody.

As the JPO published the Nyanpion mark for a post-grant opposition on April 13, 2021, HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on June 14 of that year. However, the JPO Opposition Board dismissed the entire opposition by finding dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with famous “Champion” mark on March 16, 2022. [Opposition case no. 2021-900230]

Invalidation action by Champion

On June 17, 2022, HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC filed an invalidation action against the Nyanpion mark with the JPO.

HBI repeatedly argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of the Champion brand in relation to apparels and a high degree of similarity between the contested mark and its owned trademark registrations (see below) to the extent that relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods in question bearing the contested mark with “Champion”.

JPO Decision

The JPO Invalidation Board acknowledged that the “Champion” mark has acquired a high degree of reputation as a result of substantial use in Japan for more than four decades and has become remarkably famous as a source indicator of the opponent.

In assessing similarity, the Board found that:

The design portion of two marks have in common that the inside of the horizontal oval, which is drawn with a thick blue line and has an opening, is divided vertically into three parts, the middle colored in blue, the side with the opening colored in white and the side without the opening colored in red.

Differences in the presence of a face motif and two triangles placed at the top of the horizontal oval, in the direction of the opening of the horizontal oval and in the position of the red color within the horizontal oval would be less impressive given the resemblance in the overall configuration and the high degree of reputation and popularity of the cited marks.

Besides, the Board found no evidence to suggest that relevant consumers would consider the literal element “Nyanpion” to be a relatively as a prominent part of the contested mark. If so, the contested mark is confusingly similar to the cited mark as a whole, even if the cited mark does not contain the term “Nyanpion.”

Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that both marks have a distinctive sound, taking into account the visual and conceptual similarities, as well as the notable reputation of the cited mark, the Board has reason to believe that the contested mark, when used on the goods in question, will cause confusion with the cited mark

Based on the foregoing, the JPO declared invalidation of the contested mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv).

COSME MUSEUM vs Cosmetic Museum

Posted on2024年12月8日2024年12月20日

In a trademark invalidation action disputing similarity between “COSME MUSEUM” and “Cosmetic Museum”, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) found both marks dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion when used in relation to cosmetics.
[Invalidation case no. 2024-890015, decided on November 6, 2024]

COSME MUSEUM

CEL-ENA Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application for the wordmark “COSME MUSEUM” (Contested mark) 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) in order 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, MONOTANIJUNTENKAN 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 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, both marks do not give rise to any specific meaning at all. In this regard, they are not comparable in conception.

Based on the foregoing, even if the contested mark and the cited mark are conceptually incomparable, they 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 have 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.”

Accordingly, the Board decided to dismiss the invalidation action and declared the contested mark valid.

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

Posted on2024年9月22日2024年9月22日

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.

Trademark dispute: VALENTINO GARAVANI vs GIANNI VALENTINO

Posted on2024年9月7日2024年9月14日

GIANNI VALENTINO

YOUNG SANGYO CO., LTD filed a trademark application with the JPO on November 10, 2021 for a mark consisting of a “V” device in a circle and the word “GIANNI VALENTINO” (see below) for use on footwear in class 25 [TM App no. 2021-140169].

The applicant, as one of the official licensees, has been distributing bags and pouches bearing the applied mark in the Japanese market.

The JPO examiner granted registration of the applied mark on April 19, 2022. The mark was published for a post-grant opposition on May 11, 2022 [TM Reg no. 6550051].

Opposition by Valentino S.p.A.

Valentino S.p.A. filed an opposition on July 6, 2022 and claimed cancellation of the GIANNI VALENTINO mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law on the ground that the contested mark is confusingly similar to earlier IR no. 975800 for a mark consisting of an iconic “V” device in a circle and the words “VALENTINO” and “GARAVANI” arranged in two lines (see below), which designates footwear and other goods in class 25.

Valentino argued that the literal element “VALENTINO” was dominant in the cited mark because of a high degree of recognition as a source indicator of the opponent’s business as a result of substantial and continuous use in relation to fashion industries. Therefore, relevant consumers with an ordinary care are likely to consider the term “VALENTINO” as a prominent portion of the contested mark when used on the goods in question. If so, the contested mark shall be deemed similar to the cited mark from visual, aural and conceptual points of view.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that the mark “VALENTINO” is famous among relevant consumers and traders in Japan for apparel.

The Board noted the contested mark can be dissected into individual parts on account of its appearance and famousness of the term “VALENTINO”. Given the mark “GIANNE VALENTINO” as a whole has not been recognized among relevant consumers as a source indicator of the applicant, it is reasonable to consider the literal element “VALENTINO” as a dominant part of the contested mark, which plays a role in identifying the source of the goods in question.

Similarly, the literal element “VALENTINO” of the cited mark can be considered as a dominant part because of its famousness to indicate the opponent’s business.

It is obvious that the dominant part of both marks has the same appearance, sound and meaning. If this is the case, the Board has a reason to believe that the contested mark, even as a whole, is confusingly similar to the cited mark from a visual, aural and conceptual point of view.

Based on the above findings, the JPO sided with Valentino S.p.A. and decided to cancel the contested mark in its entirety in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi).

Cobra Golf Scores Win in an Attempt to Register Mark “MIM”

Posted on2024年8月3日2024年8月10日

In a recent decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) Appeal Board sided with Cobra Golf Incorporated, represented by MARKS IP LAW FIRM, and disaffirmed the examiner’s rejection by finding dissimilarity between TM Reg no. 6208087 and Cobra’s mark “MIM” for use on golf clubs.
[Appeal case nos. 2023-16540, decided on July 9, 2024]

Cobra Golf “MIM”

Cobra Golf Incorporated, one of the leasing US golf club and golf equipment manufacturer, applied for registration of wordmark “MIM” in standard character with the JPO on December 7, 2020 for use on golf clubs in class 28 (TM App no. 2020-151063).

Cobra Golf uses the mark on their golf irons produced with a new innovative “MIM” technology which stands for ‘Metal Injection Molding’.

The JPO examiner rejected the mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law due to a conflict with an earlier trademark registration no. 6208087 for a composite mark consisting of the word “MIZKAN MUSEUM” with a device that can be seen as the word “MIM” (see below) in class 21 on June 30, 2023.

Marks IP Law Firm, on behalf of Cobra Golf, filed an appeal with the JPO on September 29, 2023, arguing that the cited mark is dissimilar to the word mark “MIM” because the figurative element of the cited mark would not be considered as a word “MIM” due to its stylization, but rather as a design consisting of a vertical line in between two “M” letters representing an initial letter of “MIZKAN” and “MUSEUM” respectively.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board found that the cited mark would not give rise to a pronunciation of “MIM” from the figurative element by stating that:

There is a slight possibility that the building-like figures on the left and right sides of the upper part of the cited mark will be perceived as the letter “M” from appearance. However, the Board considers that the relevant consumers are unlikely to find so because of the considerable stylization. The vertical line between the letters, combined with the fact that it is of a shorter length than the letters, will also not be identified as the letter “I.”

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the upper part of the cited mark would never be immediately recognized as representing the word “MIM” as a whole. Rather, the relevant consumers would recognize it only as a representation of a design with no specific meaning in its entirety.

Given the upper part of the cited mark has neither sound nor meaning, both marks, when considered globally, are easily distinguishable from visual, phonetical and conceptual points of view and unlikely to cause confusion when used on goods in class 28.

Based on the foregoing, the Board held that the examiner errored in applying Article 4(1)(xi) and decided to grant registration of Cobra’s mark “MIM”.

Trademark dispute over Chandler Bats

Posted on2024年7月27日2024年8月4日

In a trademark opposition contesting the validity of the mark “CHANDLER,” the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the oppositions claimed by Group Authentic, LLC and David Chandler.
[Opposition case nos. 2023-900161, 2023-900212, and 2023-900213, decided on July 18, 2024]

Opposed mark

La Potencia LLC filed three trademark applications with the JPO on September 6, 2022 for the wordmark “CHANDLER”, “CHANDLER BATS,” and a composite mark consisting of the word “Chandler” in script with a “C” shaped design representing a bat knob inside for use on various goods and retail or wholesale services related to baseball in Classes 9, 18, 25, 28 and 35.

The marks were all granted for registration and published for post-grant opposition accordingly.

Opposition by David Chandler

Group Authentic, LLC and David Chandler jointly filed a trademark opposition against the marks before the lapse of two months from the publication date at the JPO.

In the opposition, they argued “Chandler” has been highly known in relation to baseball bats to indicate a name of David Chandler who has manufactured hundreds of models of baseball bats for Major League Baseball players since 2009. The opposing parties has no intention to give a consent for La Potencia LLC to register the opposed marks in Japan. Under the circumstance, the opposed mark shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii) and (viii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(vii) prohibits any mark likely to cause damage to the social and public interest and disrupt the order of fair competition from registration.

Article 4(1)(viii) is a provision to prohibit registration of trademark that contains the representation or name of any person, famous pseudonym, professional name, or pen name of another person, or famous abbreviation thereof.

The JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that the mere fact and documents regarding the USPTO’s rejection of US App Nos. 97313019, 97312938, and 97313467 for the opposed marks by the USPTO were insufficient to establish a high degree of popularity and reputation of the mark “Chandler” as an abbreviation of Mr. David Chandler.

Based on the above finding, the Board has no reason to believe a lack of the consent would cause damage to the social and public interest and disrupt the order of fair competition.

To the extent that insufficient evidence has been produced to establish that the mark “Chandler” is famous as an abbreviation of Mr. David Chandler, it is inadmissible to find that the opposed marks contain a famous abbreviation of a living person.

In light of the foregoing, the Board decided the opposed marks shall not be cancelled based on Article 4(1)(vii) and (viii), and dismissed the entire oppositions.

Trademark dispute: “SOFTWEAR” vs “SOFTWAIR”

Posted on2024年5月18日2024年6月1日

In an appeal trial disputing similarity between wordmark “SOFTWEAR” and “SOFTWAIR”, the JPO reversed the examiner’s rejection due to the error in finding dissimilarity of two marks.
[Appeal case no. 2023-20831, decided on April 24. 2024]

SOFTWEAR

DuPont Safety & Construction, Inc., a US corporation, sought registration of wordmark “SAFTWEAR” in standard character for use on blankets, gloves, masks, protection masks, protective suits for medical use in class 10 with the JPO on August 22, 2022.

SOFTWAIR

The JPO examiner rejected the applied mark due to a conflict with TM Reg no. 6719284 for wordmark “SOFTWAIR” in standard character owned by Air Wair International Ltd based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

The earlier mark covers not only shoes, sports shoes, but also clothing in class 25.

DuPont filed an appeal against the examiner’s rejection on December 7, 2023 and argued that the examiner had errored in assessing similarity between the mark “SOFTWEAR” and “SOFTWAIR”.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board found the applied mark “SOFTWEAR” is not a word included in common dictionaries. Even tough respective term “SOFT” and “WEAR” has its meaning, there is no reason to believe the mark give rise to any specific meaning as a whole.

Likewise, the cited mark “SOFTWAIR” would not have a specific meaning in its entirety. But it should note that the Board found the cited mark has three pronunciations, ‘sɔft weər’, ‘sɔft waɪr ’ and ‘sɔft ueia’.

From appearance, in spite that they consist of the same kind (alphabet) and number of characters, two marks are clearly distinguishable, because of the difference of two characters “EA” and “AI” in the middle of the eight-character composition.

Even if two marks have the same pronunciation of ‘sɔft weər’, when compared with ‘sɔft waɪr ’ and ‘sɔft ueia’, the difference in the middle of the entire five or six sounds would result in a clear distinction in the overall tone and feeling.

Conceptually, it is unable to compare since both marks do not give rise to a specific meaning at all.

Based on the above findings, the Board held that even if the applied mark has the same pronunciation with one of the sounds of the cited mark, other two sounds are sufficiently distinguishable to the sound of the applied mark. Besides, both marks are not comparable in conception, and clearly distinguishable in appearance. When taking into consideration the impressions and memories given in mind of consumers by two marks, there is no risk of confusion as to the origin of the goods, and thus the Board has a reason to believe “SOFTWEAR” is dissimilar to “SOFTWAIR”.

Therefore, the examiner errored in finding similarity of the marks and applying Article 4(1)(xi). Accordingly, the rejection shall be overturned.