カテゴリー: compound mark

JPO found “@knowledge” dissimilar to “KNOWLEDGE”

Posted on

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.

JPO Found “TRITON” dissimilar to “Toriton, Inc.”

Posted on

In an administrative appeal, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) disaffirmed the examiner’s rejection to TM App no. 2024-90390 for wordmark “Toriton, Inc.” by negating similarity to earlier mark “TRITON.”
[Appeal case no. 2025-6661, decided on July 15, 2025]

Toriton, Inc.

On August 21, 2024, Toriton, Inc. filed a trademark application with the JPO for the word mark “Toriton, Inc.” in bold font with a shadow effect (see below) that designates computer software design, computer programming, or maintenance of computer software; providing computer programs on data networks and other services in Class 42 [TM App no. 2024-90390].

TRITON

The JPO examiner gave a notice of grounds for refusal based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing TM Reg no. 3221980 for stylized word mark “TORITON” (see below). The examiner considered the marks are confusingly similar and both designate the same or similar services in Class 42.

The applicant filed a response and argued dissimilarity of the marks. However, the examiner did not change his stance and decided to reject the mark on February 5, 2025.

On April 30, 2025, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection and disputed dissimilarity of the marks.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board observed that “Toriton, Inc.” and “TRITON” are dissimilar by stating that:

  1. From appearance, obvious are differences in the number and composition of the characters that consist of respective marks. When comparing the dominant element of the applied mark, “Toriton,” and the cited mark, “TRITON”, the differences in upper and lower case letters, as well as the presence or absence of the letter “o” after the first letter “T”, distinguish them.
  2. Aural comparison reveals that the overall pronunciations are distinguishable due to differences in the number of sounds and sound composition. However, the sound derived from the dominant element “Toriton” is identical to the cited mark. In this respect, both marks have a sound in common.
  3. Conceptually, the applied mark can evoke the meaning “a company named Toriton” as a whole, or no specific meaning from the dominant element. In contrast, the cited mark does not evoke any specific concept. Therefore, a conceptual comparison is neutral.
  4. Based on the foregoing, even though both marks share one sound, the Board believes there is no likelihood of confusion due to the clear distinction in appearance and concept. Taking into account the impressions, memories, and associations conceived by relevant traders and consumers, it is unlikely that the applied mark will cause confusion with the cited mark when used in connection with the services in question.
  5. Accordingly, the examiner’s findings are inaccurate, and the decision should be overturned.

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.

End of the TOKYO 2020 Olympic emblem dispute

Posted on

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

Tokyo 2020 Olympic Emblem

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

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

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

Invalidation action

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP High Court decision

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

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

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

Court Case: VALENTINO GARVANI vs GIANNI VALENTINO

Posted on

The Japan IP High Court affirmed the JPO decision that cancelled TM Reg no. 6550051 for the GIANNI VALENTINO mark due to a conflict with earlier IR no. 975800 for the VALENTINO GARVANI mark.
[Court case no. Reiwa6(Gyo-ke)10089, decided on February 27, 2025]

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.

https://shop.gianni-valentino.com/

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.

On August 23, 2024, the JPO Opposition Board decided to cancel the contested mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by stating that the dominant part of respective mark would be the literal element “VALENTINO” given famousness of the mark “VALENTINO” as a source indication for apparel of Valentino S.p.A.

To contest, the applicant filed an appeal with the IP High Court on September 30, 2024.

IP High Court decision

The IP High Court held that the JPO did not err in applying Article 4(1)(xi) to the case by stating that:

The court has no question to find that the mark “VALENTINO” is famous among relevant consumers and traders in Japan for apparel.

From appearance, the contested mark can be dissected into three parts, namely, figurative element, “GIANNI”, and “VALENTINO”. Given the mark “GIANNE VALENTINO” 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.

Therefore, the court 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.

As a conclusion, the court ruled to dismiss the appeal in favor of Valentino S.p.A.

JPO found “Pitta” dissimilar to “PITTA MASK”

Posted on

In an administrative decision on Jan 14, 2025, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s rejection that found similarity of mark between earlier TM Reg no. 6486979 “PITTA MASK” (Cl. 35) and junior TM App no. 2023-61590 “Pitta” (Cl. 35).
[Appeal case no. 2024-6542]

Applied mark “Pitta”

Pitta Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application for word mark “Pitta” in standard character with the JPO on June 5, 2023.

The application designates various services in classes 35 and 42, in particular ‘advertising and publicity services; promoting the goods and services of others through the administration of sales and promotional incentive schemes involving trading stamps; business management; marketing research or analysis; providing commercial information and advice for consumers in the choice of products and services’.

Earlier mark “PITTA MASK”

On November 20, 2023, the JPO examiner raised her objection due to a conflict with earlier TM Reg no. 6486979 “PITTA MASK” (see below) 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.

https://www.arax.co.jp/pittamask/en/product/

Though the cited mark is just in use for sanitary masks, it is allowed under the trademark law to designate goods and services other than masks as long as the total number of similarity code does not exceed 22 in each class. Since the cited mark also covers the same services unrelated to sanitary masks with the applied mark in class 35, the JPO examiner decided to reject the applied mark on March 18, 2024.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection with the JPO on April 17, 2024 and claimed cancellation of the examiner’s rejection by arguing dissimilarity of the marks.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board found the examiner errored in finding similarity of mark and decided to reverse the rejection.

The Board reasoned that the term “SELECT” is a less distinctive word since it is commonly used to exaggerate quality of goods and service. Meanwhile, the term “PITTA” and “MASK” are depicted in a larger and conspicuous font, and visually represented as a combined element. The term “MASK” would not be less distinctive when used on goods and services unrelated to sanitary masks. If so, the literal portion consisting of “PITTA” and “MASK” can be extricable part of the cited mark. Therefore, it is permissible to consider the portion as a dominant in the cited mark and assess similarity of mark by comparing the dominant portion with the applied mark.

Based on the above findings, the Board found the cited mark gives rise to a pronunciation of ‘pitta mask” but no specific meaning.

Visually, the applied mark is distinguishable from the dominant portion due to non-existence of the term “MASK” and horizontal lines.

Phonetically, comparing ‘pitta’ with ‘pitta mask’, both marks are easily distinguishable.

A conceptual comparison is neutral as both marks have any clear meaning.

As a conclusion, given both marks are dissimilar, even if the designated services in class 35 are overlapping, the Board has no reason to find the applied mark subject to Article 4(1)(xi).

TOMMY HILFIGER vs TOMTOMMY

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B.V. in an opposition against TM Reg no. 6604265 “TOMTOMMY” due to dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion with “TOMMY” and “TOMMY HILFIGER”.
[Opposition case no. 2022-900456, gazette issued on December 27, 2024]

TOMTOMMY

The contested mark, consisting of the word “TOMTOMMY” in standard characters, was filed with the JPO by a Chinese individual on January 20, 2022 for use on shoulder bags, tote bags, sports bags, wallets, umbrellas and other goods in Class 18, and underwear, belts, shoes, caps, coats, socks and other goods in Class 25 on January 30, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-10028).

The JPO examiner made an administrative decision to grant registration of the mark on August 3, 2022. Subsequently, the mark was published in Trademark Gazette for post-grant opposition on August 31, 2022.

Opposition by Tommy Hilfiger

Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B.V. filed an opposition with the JPO on October 31, 2022 by citing its own earlier trademark registrations for the wordmark “TOMMY” or “TOMMY HILFIGER”.

Tommy Hilfiger claimed that the contested mark should be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) 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.

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

Tommy Hilfiger contends that the contested mark is composed of two distinctive words, “TOM” and “TOMMY”. Since “TOMMY” has been widely recognized by the relevant consumers to indicate the world-famous fashion brand “TOMMY HILFIGER”, the average consumers, uppon seeing the goods in question bearing the contested mark, will consider the term “TOMMY” as a prominent part of the contested mark in order to identify its origin. If so, the contested mark is similar to the cited marks a high degree.

Moreover, Tommy Hilfiger has used not only the mark “TOMMY”, but also various marks containing “TOMMY”, such as “TOMY JEANS”, “TOMMY NOW”, “TOMMY SPORT”, “TEAM TOMMY”, “TOMMY FACTORY”. In those circumstances, the consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that the goods in question bearing the contested mark “TOMTOMMY” come from the same undertaking or from economically-linked undertaking.

JPO decision

To my surprise, the JPO Opposition Board questioned the high degree of recognition of fashion brands, “TOMMY” and “TOMMY HILFIGER”, because the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the substantial and extensive use of the cited marks in Japan.

Furthermore, the Board denied similarity even between “TOMTOMMY” and “TOMMY” by stating:

  1. The contested mark is considered to be a coined word, and therefore has no specific meaning.
  2. Visually, both marks are distinguishable due to the difference in the number of letters that constitutes respective mark (8 letters vs 5 letters).
  3. Aurally, both sounds are dissimilar because the prefix sound “TOM” has a significant impact on the overcall pronunciation.
  4. A conceptual comparison is neutral because neither “TOMTOMMY” nor “TOMMY” has any clear meaning.

Because Tommy Hilfiger failed to demonstrate a high degree of popularity of the cited marks, the Board found that there was no reason to believe that the relevant consumer would confuse the source of the goods at issue bearing the contested mark with Tommy Hilfiger or an economically-linked undertaking due to a low degree of similarity between the marks.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the contested mark shall not be canceled and dismissed the oppositions entirely.

Top 10 Trademark News in Japan, 2024

Posted on

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 on

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.

https://unitedgold.jp/

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”.

https://www.haward.co.jp/united.html

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:

  1. From appearance and meaning, there is no reasonable ground to find “UNITED” and “GOLD” shall be recognized individual and separable.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 on

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).