カテゴリー: Similarity of mark

Trademark Dispute: Domino’s Pizza vs Dog’s Pizza

Posted on

In a trademark opposition against TM Reg no. 6804935 for the mark “Dog’s Pizza”, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Domino’s IP Holder LLC, which claimed similarity to and likelihood of confusion with Domino’s red and blue rectangular emblem with three white dots.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900149, decided on April 2, 2025]

Dog’s Pizza

The contested mark, consisting of the words “DOG’s PIZZA” in red and its translation written in Japanese katakana character, and rectangular device in red and dark blue with two paw prints (see below), was filed with the JPO by a Japanese individual for use on February 14, 2024 for use on pet food and dog food in Class 31 [TM App no. 2024-14656].

Upon request for accelerated examination, the JPO examiner granted registration of the mark on April 30, 2024, without raising any grounds for refusal.

https://mogmogwan.jp/ca2/22/p-r2-s/

Opposition by Domino’s Pizza

On July 23, 2024, a two-month statutory period counting from the publication date, May 23, 2024, Domino’s IP Holder LLC filed an opposition and claimed cancellation of the contested mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(x), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Domino argued that the rectangular device of the contested mark is distinctive and dominant element to identify a specific source. Comparing the device with Domino’s red and blue rectangular emblem with three white dots, which has become famous per se as the source indicator of Domino’s Pizza in Japan, they are visually similar to a high degree. Therefore, the relevant consumers, upon seeing the contested mark used on the goods in question, would associate it with Domino’s Pizza and confuse the source with Domino’s Pizza or any business entity economically or systematically related to Domino’s Pizza.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board stated that, even though Domino’s Pizza Japan, Inc., a domestic franchisee, has operated more than 1,000pizza delivery and take-away stores in Japan, unless the evidence submitted included sales figures, market share, and advertising expenditures in Japan and other countries, the Board could not find it reasonable to concede a high degree of recognition of the cited mark among the relevant consumers.

Regarding the similarity of the marks, the Board considers that the consumers are unlikely to confuse the two marks because of the clear difference in the dots and paw prints depicted in the rectangular device. Furthermore, there is no indication of similarity from an aural and conceptual point of view.

Given the lack of evidence concerning the reputation of the cited mark and the low degree of similarity between the marks, the Board found that there was no reason to find a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to dismiss the entire allegations and, accordingly , to declare the validity of the contested mark.

HERMES Defeated with Trademark Opposition against KIMONO TWILLY

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Hermes International against TM Reg no. 6753650 for the word mark “KIMONO TWILLY” in Class 18, claiming a likelihood of confusion with the Hermes scarves “TWILLY”.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900010 / Gazette issued date: March 28, 2025]

KIMONO TWILLY

The contested mark, consisting of word “KIMONO TWILLY” in standard character, was filed by NPO Kimono For World Heritage Promotion Committee for use on bags and pouches, purses, vanity cases in Class 18 with the JPO on April 20, 2023 [TM App no. 2023-49360].

“KIMONO” is a traditional piece of Japanese clothing like a long loose coat, worn at special ceremonies.

https://omotenashi.or.jp/

The JPO granted registration of the mark “KIMONO TWILLY” on October 13, 2024, without issuing any refusal notice, and published it for a post-grant opposition on November 22, 2023.

Hermes TWILLY

On Jan 19, 2024, Hermes International filed an opposition against “KIMONO TWILLY” based on Article 4(1)(xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing an owned earlier TM Reg no. 4764732 for the word mark “TWILLY” in Classes 24, 25, and 26.

Hermes argued that the contested mark is confusingly similar to the earlier mark “TWILLY”, which has become famous for Hermes’ tie-like scarves, because the term “KIMONO” is less distinctive in relation to the goods in question.

Taking into consideration that the contested mark covers bags, which have a close association with Hermes, and that the “TWILLY” scarves are widely known to be used to wrap the handles of Hermes handbags, the relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods in question bearing the contested mark with Hermes. Given the significant popularity and reputation of the Hermes TWILLY scarves, the applicant would have to be in bad faith to free-ride on that reputation by deliberately adopting a similar mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board noted the submitted evidence was inadequate to substantiate a high degree of recognition for the earlier mark “TWILLY” since Hermes failed to provide objective evidence concerning sales figures, market share, and advertising expenditures in Japan and other countries.

Additionally, the Board found that the contested mark should be assessed in its entirety even if the term “KIMONO” indicates a traditional piece of Japanese clothing, as the respective word of the contested mark is represented in the same font, size, and the whole sound is not too long.

If so, both marks are deemed dissimilar because there is a clear difference in appearance and sound even though a conceptual comparison is neutral as none of them have any clear meaning.

Based on the above findings, the Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers of the goods in question would associate the contested mark with Hermes “TWILLY” scarves.

Consequently, the Board decided the contested mark should not be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) and (xix).

Trademark dispute: “MARROW” vs “Le mallow”

Posted on

In a recent decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) disaffirmed the examiner’s rejection of TM App no. 2023-42899 for wordmark “MARROW” in class 3 based on erroneous finding of similarity to earlier TM Reg no. 6107748 for wordmark “Le mallow” in class 3.
[Appeal case no. 2024-10724, decided on March 3, 2025]

MARROW

East Corporation Inc. files a trademark application for word mark “MARROW” in standard character for use on cosmetics in class 3 with the JPO on March 29, 2024 [TM App no. 2023-42899].

https://eastcorporation.net/

Le mallow

On March 29, 2024, the JPO examiner found the applied mark is note eligible for registration under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law due to a conflict with earlier TM Reg no. 6107748 for the wordmark consisting of “Le mallow” and its Japanese transliteration represented as below. The cited mark also designates cosmetics in class 3.

The examiner stated in her rejection that a mark to be used in connection with cosmetics and clothing frequently contains French terms. The word “Le”, known as a definite article in French having no particular meaning, is less distinctive per se. In this respect, it is reasonable to assume that relevant consumers would pay attention to the word “mallow” as distinctive and dominant element of the applied mark. If so, the examiner believes that the cited mark does not give rise to a specific meaning, but has the same sound with the applied mark.

Where the consumers are unable to remember a mark with its meaning, they will have to rely on its sound. Therefore, in assessing similarity of the mark that has no particular meaning, it is reasonable to focus on similarity of the sound as a matter of course.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection with the JPO on June 28, 2024, requesting that the rejection be set aside.

JPO Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board had doubt whether the term “mallow” is dominant in the cited mark from overall configuration.

The Board found the cited mark should be assessed in its entirety because the literal elements are all represented in the same font and size. The whole sound can be pronounced smoothly. Given the term “mallow” is not a familiar foreign word among relevant consumers in Japan, it is rather unreasonable to find that the cited mark can be dissected into two words and the consumers consider the term “mallow” as a dominant element of the cited mark.

Based on the above findings, the Board assessed similarity of the marks.

From appearance, both marks are distinguishable on account of differences in overall configuration and components of the letter. Aurally, the sound “mær·oʊ” of the applied mark and “lə mæl.oʊ” of the cited mark are dissimilar due to clear difference in the initial sound. A conceptual comparison is neutral as neither mark has any clear meaning. Taking globally into consideration the impression, recollection, and perception of both marks by the average consumers, the Board finds it reasonable to consider the applied mark is dissimilar to and unlikely to cause confusion with the cited mark.

As a conclusion, the Board decided to overturn the examiner’s rejection and granted registration of the applied mark.

Porsche Successful in Registration of Composite Mark “PCA”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s rejection of TM App no. 2023-61383 for composite mark “PCA” filed by Porshe Japan on account of dissimilarity to earlier trademark registrations for word mark “PCA”.
[Appeal case no. 2024-3079, decided on February 17, 2025]

PREMIUM CHARGING ALLIANCE “PCA”

Porsche Japan K.K., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Porsche AG as an official distributor of Porsche vehicles in Japan, filed trademark application for composite mark “PCA” as shown below with the JPO for use on ‘compute programs’ in class 9 and ‘computer software design; computer programing; maintenance of computer software; providing computer programs on data networks’ in class 42 on June 5, 2023.

Porsche Japan has launched a project to expand the network of 150kW fast charging stations across Japan by forming an alliance with Audi in April 2022. The applied mark is used to indicate the project.

JPO examination

On November 21, 2023, the JPO examiner rejected the applied mark due to a conflict with earlier trademark registration nos. 1738222, 5762134 and 5764544 for word mark “PCA” in class 9 and 42 owned by PCA Corporation based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

In the refusal decision, the examiner stated that the element “PCA” in the upper line of the applied mark is dominant in the overall visual impression. If so, the applied mark is confusingly similar to the cited marks, even though there is a difference in appearance, since both marks give rise to the same sound.

Porsche Japan filed an appeal against the rejection on February 21, 2024, requesting that the decision be set aside.

Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board found the applied mark should not be dissected into individual parts from its overall configuration. Relevant consumers would recognize the term “PCA” in the upper line as an abbreviation of the term “PREMIUM CHARGING ALLIANCE” in the lower line. Both the term “PCA” and “PREMIUM CHARGING ALLIANCE” would not give rise to any specific meaning.

In assessing similarity of the marks, the Board held there is no clear distinction in appearance between the marks as a whole. Phonetically, the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited marks on account of the sound arising from the term “PREMIUM CHARGING ALLIANCE”. The conceptual aspect does not have impact on the assessment of similarity, since both marks are meaningless.

Based on the above findings, the Board found the examiner erroneously applied Article 4(1)(xi) and declared registration of the applied mark due to dissimilarity to the earlier mark “PCA”.

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.

Trademark dispute: SONY vs SONIMART

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with SONY in a trademark invalidation action against TM Reg no. 6162062 for word mark “SONIMARK” in classes 35 and 42 by finding a likelihood of confusion with famous mark “SONY”.
[Invalidation case no. 2024-890041, decided on January 27, 2025]

SONIMART

The contested mark, consisting of word “SONIMART” and its transliteration written in Japanese katakana character arranged in two lines (see below), was filed by Sonic Line Co., Ltd. for use on various services including retail service and providing computer programs on data networks in classes 35 and 42 with the JPO on June 14, 2018.

The JPO examiner did not find similarity to and a likelihood of confusion with famous brand “SONY” and granted registration of the mark on July 12, 2019.

Invalidation action by SONY

SONY, one of the most recognized Japanese brands globally, filed an application for declaration of invalidity with the JPO on July 11, 2024, just before the lapse of five years counting from its registration date.

SONY claimed that the contested mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing its owned earlier trademark registrations for the mark “SONY”.

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) is a provision to prohibit any mark from registering if it is likely to cause confusion with other business entities’ well-known goods or services.

SONY argued that relevant consumers of the services in question are likely to find the contested mark consists of “SONI” and “MART”. Since the term ‘MART’ is less distinctive in relation to the services in question, the element ‘SONI’, which is visually and phonetically confusingly similar to ‘SONY’, would play a dominant role in indicating the source of the services covered by the contested mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Invalidation Board did not question the high degree of reputation and popularity of the mark “SONY” in relation to telecommunications and electronic machines and apparatus, and consumer games.

Comparing the contested mark and the cited mark “SONY”, although the marks differ in their overall structure, both marks contain the same initial three letters, “SON” and the same pronunciation. Moreover, the term “SONI” and its sound are likely to be associated with the cited mark “SONY”, which is well known and famous in the fields of telecommunications and electronic machines and apparatus, and consumer games.

Bearing in mind that SONY has plenty of group companies and stores using a name consisting of “SONY” and descriptive word, such as Sony shop, Sony music entertainment, Sony bank, Sony city, the Board has a reason to believe that there is a certain degree of similarity between the contested mark and the cited mark.

Consumers of the services in question, in particular retail services for smart phone cases, rental of computers, and providing computer programs on data networks, are overlapping with those of telecommunications and electronic machines and apparatus. In this respect, these are closely related.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to invalidate the contested mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) because the relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of the services in question with SONY or an entity that is systematically or economically connected to the claimant.

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).

UNIQLO Lost in Trademark Opposition against UNIPRO

Posted on

UNIQLO lost in its attempt to oppose TM Reg no. 6746724 for the mark “UNIPRO” in class 28 due to dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion with a world-famous Japanese clothing brand “UNIQLO”.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900278, Gazette issued on December 27, 2024]

UNIPRO

Kabushiki Kaisha UNIQUE, a Japanese corporation, filed a trademark application for the mark “UNIPRO” in relation to pet toys and sports equipment in class 28 with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on April 17, 2023 [TM App no. 2023-41531]. The mark has the word “UNIPRO” written in two lines inside a square (see below).

On October 10, 2023, the JPO examiner approved the registration of the applied mark without issuing an office action. Subsequently, the JPO published the mark for a post-grant opposition on October 27, 2023.

Opposition by UNIQLO

Fast Retailing Co., Ltd., a public Japanese retail holding company, is best known for its flagship brand UNIQLO. The company filed an opposition with the JPO on December 8, 2023 by citing its own earlier trademark registrations for the UNIQLO mark.

Fast Retailing claimed that the applied mark should be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law because of a high degree of similarity to and a likelihood of confusion with famous fashion brand UNIQLO when used on the goods in question.

Fast Retailing argued, among other things, visual and aural similarity between UNIPRO and UNIQLO. Arranging the first three letters “UNI” in the top line and the last three letters in the bottom line in a square would be anything but a coincidence. Since the mark “UNIQLO” is a coined word and has become famous to indicate Japanese clothing brand operated by Fast Retailing Group, the applicant must have intended to free-ride on the goodwill bestowed on UNIQLO and unjustifiably obtain profits by using the applied mark “UNIPRO” that is confusingly similar to the cited mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that the cited mark and “UNIQLO” have been widely recognized among relevant consumers in Japan to indicate a source of clothing managed by Fast Retailing Group.

In the meantime, the Board held “UNIPRO” is dissimilar to and unlikely to cause confusion with “UNIQLO” by stating:

  1. The applied mark and the cited mark both consist of white letters and a square. They also share the letters “UNI” in the top line and “O” in the bottom line. However, the difference of the letters “PR” and “QL” in the bottom line gives an impression that the marks represent different word in a square. Therefore, the applied mark is distinguishable from the cited mark in appearance.
  2. Comparing the sound of the applied mark with that of the cited mark, there is a difference in the third tone of “pu” and “ku”. This difference has anything but negligible effect on the overall tone and impression since respective sound has a short four-syllable structure. Thus, the Board finds it reasonable to conclude that there is no risk of mishearing each other.
  3. Conceptual aspect does not have impact on the assessment of likelihood of confusion, since both marks are meaningless.

Taking into consideration a low degree of similarity between the marks, even if the cited mark has become famous among relevant consumers, the Board has no reason to believe the consumers would consider an origin of the goods in question bearing the applied mark from UNIQLO or an undertaking economically or systematically linked to Fast Retailing.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to dismissed the entire opposition.

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.

Trademark dispute: MONSTER EVERGY vs POCKET MONSTERS

Posted on

In a trademark opposition disputed between “MONSTER ENERGY” and “POCKET MONSTERS”, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Monster Energy Company and decided in favor of Nintendo.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900162, decided on December 19, 2024]

POCKET MONSTERS

Nintendo / Creatures Inc. / Game Freak Inc., the IP owners of “Pocket Monsters”, widely known as its abbreviation, “Pokémon” as well, filed a trademark application for wordmark “POCKET MONSTRERS” in standard character for use on various categories of goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 30 and 41 with the JPO on September 1, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-101055).

Pokémon, a blend of the words “Pocket Monsters”, means not only fictional creatures that inhabit the fictional Pokémon World, but also a Japanese media franchise that includes video games, animated series, films, and a trading card game.

The JPO granted protection of the applied mark without issuing any office action on April 3, 2023. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on May 12, 2023.

Opposition by Monster Energy

Monster Energy Company, the parent company of Monster Energy Drink, filed an opposition against “POCKET MONSTERS” with the JPO on July 10, 2023 before the lapse of a two-month statutory period counting from the publication date.

Monster Energy claimed a partial cancellation of the applied mark in relation to the designated goods of class 30 including tea, tea-based beverages, coffee, coffee beverages, cocoa based on Article 4(1)(vii) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing its owned earlier marks that consist of “MONSTER ENERGY” or “MONSTER” in class 32.

Monster Energy alleged that the mark “MONSTER” has become famous among consumers to indicate energy drinks originating from the claimant. There was no dispute that the applied mark contains the term “MONSTER”. Therefore, relevant consumers would mistakenly associate the opposed mark with the claimant and consider a source of the beverages bearing the mark “POCKET MONSTERS” from a licensee of the claimant.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found evidence sufficient to establish a high degree of recognition of the mark “MONSTER ENERGY” to indicate energy drinks from the claimant. However, the Board questioned whether the cited marks have been widely recognized even among general consumers of carbonated beverages and juices other than energy drinks.

In addition, the Board found evidence insufficient to find a certain degree of recognition of the mar “MONSTER” per se.

Based on the above findings, the Board assessed similarity of mark by comparing overall appearance, sound and meaning between “MONSTER ENERGY” and “POCKET MONSTERS”.

From appearance and sound, the difference of words, “ENERGY” and “POCKET” has a material effect on overall visual and aural impression to the extent that relevant consumers can easily distinguish. Conceptually, the marks are unlikely to cause confusion because the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning contrary to the cited marks. Therefore, the opposed mark is deemed dissimilar to the cited mark “MONSTER ENERGY”.

Given the low degree of similarity between “MONSTER ENERGY” and “POCKET MONSTERS”, the Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers are likely to associate the opposed mark used on the goods in class 30 with Monster Energy or its licensee.

If so, the opposed mark should not be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii) and (xv).