カテゴリー: Similarity of mark

HERMES scores victory in trademark battle over KELLY

Posted on2 Comments

In a trademark opposition at the Japan Patent Office (JPO), French luxury brand HERMES achieved victory to stop the registration of a word mark “D. KELLY” over bags and pouches in class 18.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900177, Gazette issue date: March 27, 2020]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark, “D.KELLY” was applied for registration on August 25, 2017 by designating bags and pouches in class 18, and published for registration on May 22, 2018 without any office action from the JPO examiner.

Applicant, a Japanese individual, apparently operates brick-and -mortar shops in Japan and on-line shop to promote hand bags, shoulder bags, tote bags, rucksacks/backpacks and other fashion items.
“D.KELLY” is used on the bags and as its shop name.

Hermes Kelly Bag

Opponent, HERMES INTERNATIONAL, a French luxury fashion house, claimed that the opposed mark “D.KELLY” shall be liable for cancellation under Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing the Hermes Kelly Bag and an owned senior trademark registration no. 4341534 for word mark “KELLY” in standard character over bags, pouches and other goods in class 18.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit from registering a junior mark which is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

Hermes argued opposed mark is perceived as a combination of “D.” and “KELLLY”. The prefix “D.” per se lacks distinctiveness in relation to the goods in question. The mark as a whole does not give rise to any specific meaning at all. As a consequence, the literal portion of “KELLY” shall play a dominant role as a source indicator. If so, opposed mark is deemed confusingly similar to “KELLY” owned by Hermes. Besides, both marks designate same goods in class 18.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entity’s well-known goods or services, to the benefit of brand owner and consumers.

Given a remarkable degree of reputation of Hermes “Kelly” Bag in relation to bags, relevant consumers with an ordinary care would associate “D.KELLY” with Hermes and confuse its source when used on bags and pouches because “KELLY” is not a common surname in Japan and thus the term is more distinctive than “D.”.

JPO decision

The Opposition Board of JPO sided with Hermes and decided to cancel opposed mark by stating that:

  1. From the produced evidences, Hermes has continuously used the cited mark on bag since 1956, inspired by an icon, Princess Grace Kelly of Monaco. The bag has been advertised or publicized in fashion magazines and internet frequently. Annual sales consecutively reach in the range of JPY 1.6 to 4.6 billion, which amounts 2,000 to 4,000 bags in quantity, for the past fifteen years. The Board admits a high degree of reputation and popularity of opponent mark “KELLY” as a source indicator of Hermes bag.
  2. The Board considers opposed mark is a compound mark of “D” and “KELLY” placing dot(.) in-between. Since an alphabetical letter “D” lacks distinctiveness, relevant consumers would conceive the portion of “KELLY” as a dominant source indicator. If so, opposed mark may give rise to a meaning of Hermes brand bag, identical pronunciation and appearance with opponent’s mark. It is unquestionable that goods in question belongs to that of the citation.
  3. Provided that Hermes “Kelly Bag” has been rather known for in a name of “Kelly Bag” than “Kelly”, the Board finds a high degree of similarity between the marks in relation to bags. If so, it is undeniable that relevant consumers and traders are likely to confuse opposed mark with Hermes “Kelly Bag” or misconceive a source from any entity systematically or economically connected with Hermes International.
  4. Based on the foregoing, opposed mark shall be liable for cancellation based on Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv).

OKLOK vs OKLOCK

Posted on

In a trademark dispute, similarity between “OKLOK” and “OKLOCK”, the Appeal Board of the Japan Patent Office found both marks dissimilar and reversed examiner’s rejection.
[Appeal case no. 2019-16781, Gazette issued date: March 27, 2020]

OKLOK

A senior mark, consisting of a word “OKLOK” in standard character, was registered on September 21, 2018 (TM Reg no. 6083192) over electric locks; electronic key fobs being remote control apparatus; anti-theft warning apparatus; other goods in class 9 by a Chinese business entity, 深圳市龙兄弟数码锁有限公司 (Shenzhen Longbrothers Digital Co., Ltd.).

Owner has used “OKLOK” on fingerprint key less padlock, Smart Bluetooth Security Lock with USB Charge and other intelligent anti-theft devices (see below).

[Capture shot of OKLOK official site]

OKLOCK

Applied junior mark, consisting of a word “OKLOCK” in standard character, was applied for registration on April 3, 2019 over anti-theft locks for use on automobile steering wheels and other goods in class 12 [TM application no. 2019-47122].

Applicant uses “OKLOCK” on car steering wheel locks and anti-theft car hand brake and gear lock (see below).

The JPO examiner rejected “OKLOCK” because of confusing similarity to “OKLOK” based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registering a junior mark which is identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

There is criterion that the examiner is checking when assessing the similarity between the marks:

  • visual similarity
  • aural similarity
  • conceptual similarity

and taking into account all these three aspects examiner makes a decision if a mark is similar (at least to some extent) with the earlier mark and if there is a likelihood of confusion for the consumers.

Applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on December 11, 2019 and argued dissimilarity of both marks.

Appeal Board decision

In the decision, the Appeal Board held that:

From appearance, applied mark “OKLOCK” contains a letter “C” unlike the cited mark “OKLOK”. This gives rise to a distinctive impression visually in the mind of relevant consumers where respective mark consists of five or six-letter words, anything but long.

Next, applied mark is pronounces as [oʊˈkeɪ lɑːk]. In the meantime, the cited mark just gives rise to a pronunciation of [oʊˈkeɪ el ə keɪ] because relevant consumers are likely to see “OKLOK” as a combination of five alphabets and read it as each letter sounds since “OKLOK” does not appear in dictionary.

Thirdly, applied mark does not give rise to any specific meaning in its entirety even though it is perceived as a combination of “OK” and “LOCK”. Likewise, relevant consumers would not conceive any meaning from “OKLOK” and just see it as a coined word. If so, both marks are incomparable from concept.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found no reasonable ground to affirm examiner’s rejection from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view and decided to reverse examiner’s rejection.

BRIDGESTONE Victorious in Trademark Dispute for B Mark Logo

Posted on1 Comment

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) upheld an invalidation petition by the world’s largest tire and rubber company, Bridgestone Corporation against TM Reg. no. 5664068 for the “SB NAGAMOCHI” mark due to a likelihood of confusion with its well-known B mark logo.
[Invalidation case no. 2018-890068, Gazette issue date: March 27, 2020]

TM Registration no. 5664068

Disputed mark, consisting of “SB” logo and a word “NAGAMOCHI” in a smaller plain letter (see below left), was applied for registration on September 13, 2013 in respect of non-electric prime movers for land vehicles, not including their parts; AC motors or DC motors for land vehicles, not including their parts; automobiles and their parts and fittings; two-wheeled motor vehicles, bicycles and their parts and fittings; adhesive rubber patches for repairing tubes or tires in class 12.

Without confronting with a refusal during substantive examination, disputed mark was registered on April 18, 2014.

Applicant of disputed mark, RMP NAGAMOCHI Technology Japan Ltd promotes various structural parts for automobiles, e.g. cylinders, brakes and clutch hoses, brake calipers, brake pads, rubber parts, filters, gaskets. Disputed mark was actually used on brake pads (see below).

Petition for invalidation

Japan Trademark Law has a provision to retroactively invalidate trademark registration for certain restricted reasons specified under Article 46 (1) provided that interested party files an invalidation petition within five-year statute of limitations.

Bridgestone Corporation, a Japanese tire and rubber company, filed a petition for invalidation against disputed mark on September 5, 2018. Bridgestone argued the mark shall be invalidated due to a likelihood of confusion with its famous “B” mark logo (see above right) when used on all goods in class 12 based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entity’s well-known goods or services, to the benefit of brand owner and users.

Board Decision

In the decision, JPO Trial Board sided with Bridgestone by finding that:

  1. In 2016, Bridgestone holds top-ranked market share (14.6%) of automobiles tires in the world, the largest market share (55.9%) of tires and rubber products in Japan.
  2. Bridgestone has consecutively used “B” mark logo on goods and promotions as a symbolic house mark of Bridgestone group since 1984 and even when announcing sponsorship partnership with the Olympic Games and Tokyo2020 Paralympic Games Gold Partner.
  3. Based on the foregoing, it is unquestionable that “B” mark logo has acquired strong and considerable reputation as a source indicator of Bridgestone tires and rubber products among relevant traders and consumers of goods in question.
  4. “B” logo is a ‘strong’ mark because it is depicted with distinctive figurative element so that the mark as a whole can be seen sufficiently distinguishable from an ordinary “B” letter.
  5. Both marks look different when compared in its entirety, however, 2nd letter of “SB” logo is considered highly similar to “B” mark logo from visual point of view.
  6. Disputed goods “automobiles and their parts and fittings; two-wheeled motor vehicles, bicycles and their parts and fittings” and “tires” have the potential to be connected in the minds of the consumers. Since respective products share distributors or can be found in the same stores, there finds proximity in channels of trade and marketing of the products on which the marks are used.
  7. Foregoing weighs in favor of finding confusion. Thus, disputed mark shall be invalidated in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

No Success for Monster Energy Claws

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY against trademark registration no. 6091273 for “M” logo design on goods/services in class 3,5,35 and negated the likelihood of confusion with Monster Energy Claws.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900390, Gazette issue date: February 28, 2020]

MONSTER HAIR

Opposed mark, “M” logo design (see below), was filed by AND BEAUTY JAPAN Co., Ltd. on June 12, 2018 on goods of hair nourishers; cosmetics; soaps and detergents in class 3, medicinal preparations for stimulating hair growth; pharmaceutical preparations; dietary supplements for humans in class 5, retail services and wholesale services for above goods in class 35, and registered for publication on November 13, 2018.

AND BEAUTY JAPAN promotes MONSTER HAiR sprays for men. Opposed mark is actually represented on the spray can.

Opposition by Monster Energy

On December 26, 2018, Monster Energy Company filed an opposition and argued opposed mark shall be revocable under Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law due to a likelihood of confusion with Monster Energy Claws.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits to register a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with a business of other entity.

Monster Energy argued that opponent has used the mark Monster Energy Claws on energy drinks since 2002. In Japan, since its debut in May 2012, approximately 236 million cans were sold in three years which amount 175 million USD or more. Monster Energy has been aggressively promoting the energy drinks in sports and music events, and grants license to supply bracelets, key holders, T-shirts, headgears, racing jackets, gloves, helmets for sports, stickers, umbrellas, videogames. According to a survey of popular energy drinks, Monster Energy holds a 25% market share in Japan, 2013. These facts suggest Monster Energy Claws has acquired substantial reputation and popularity among relevant consumers as a source indicator of opponent. Besides, both marks give rise to visual, phonetical, and conceptual impression relating to an alphabetical letter “M”. Given energy drinks are closely associated with pharmaceutical preparations and dietary supplements for humans, relevant consumers are likely to misconceive the source of goods using opposed mark with Monster Energy or an entity systematically or economically connected with opponent.

Board Decision

At the outset, JPO provided a viewpoint that Monster Energy drinks belong to carbonated drinks [refreshing beverages] in class 32. If so, opponent failed to demonstrate its market share in carbonated drinks. From the produced evidences, the Board admits relevant traders and the young generation would recognize Monster Energy Claws as a source indicator of opponent to some extent, however, it is doubtful whether opponent mark has been highly known among general consumers of carbonated drinks.

In the assessment of similarity of mark, the Board found opponent mark shows three vertical parallel black shaky lines of different lengths whose upper parts is broader and which, from the perspective of the relevant public, might resemble three ‘claws’ or a very abstract depiction to which no specific and clear meaning can be attributed. With regard to the phonetic and conceptual aspect, the signs at issue are incomparable. From appearance, it is obvious that both marks are sufficiently distinguishable. Thus, the Board held the signs at issues are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion.

Besides, the Board negated close relation between energy drinks and pharmaceutical preparations, dietary supplements for humans in view of its nature, purpose, usage, distribution channel and manufacturers.

In respect of the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion, having regard to all the relevant factors, the Based found there was no likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public and decided opposed mark shall not be revocable under Article 4(1)(xv).

Adidas defeated in 3-stripe trademark dispute

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) held in an opposition filed by Adidas AG that trademark registration no. 6085087 for horizontal three-stripes (Opposed mark) shall remain as valid as ever and entirely dismissed Adidas’ claims based on its famous three stripes.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900382, Gazette issued on February 28, 2020]

ULTRA MUSIC FESTIVAL

Opposed mark (see below) was applied for registration on October 10, 2017 over clothing, headwear, footwear in class 25, advertisement and promotion of music festival, concert in class 35, arrangement and conducting of musical performances, music festival, concerts in class 41 by Ultra Enterprises Inc., a U.S. business entity organizing outdoor electronic music event “ULTRA MUSIC FESTIVAL (UML)”, and published for registration on October 23, 2018.

Apparently, opposed mark is used as a symbolic logo for Ultra Music Festival’s RESISTANCE set.

Opposition by Adidas

On December 21, 2018, Adidas AG filed an opposition and argued opposed mark is revocable under Article 4(1)(vii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law in relation to its famous three stripes (see below).

Article 4(1)(vii)

Article 4(1)(vii) prohibits any mark likely to offend public order and morals from registering.

Based on a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity to Adidas three stripes, opponent asserted, applicant must have been aware of Adidas three stripes and filed opposed mark with a malicious intention to take advantage of the reputation and credit of opponent’s famous trademark and impair the goodwill embodied on its iconic three stripes.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits to register a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with a business of other entity.

Adidas argued that, from appearance and concept, opposed mark evidently gives rise to a same impression with Adidas three stripes since each stripe of the mark is depicted in the same direction, width and shape, besides a space between stripe also has the same width with the stripe.

Average consumers with an ordinary care of goods/services in question who have been quite familiar with Adidas are likely to associate opposed mark with Adidas’ three-stripes. Inter alia, when opposed mark is used on apparels with a smaller configuration printed in one spot, so-called ‘one-point mark’, it must be difficult for relevant consumers to distinguish opposed mark with Adidas three-stripes because of its resemblance. Besides, goods/services in question are closely related to opponent business, namely sportswear, sports shoes, sports events. If so, it is highly anticipated that relevant consumers would confuse a source of opposed mark with opponent.

JPO Decision

The Opposition Board admitted a high degree of reputation and popularity to Adidas three stripes in relation to sport shoes, sportswear, sports gear at the time of initial filing and registration of opposed mark.

In the meantime, the Board found a low degree of originality of three stripes and similarity between the marks, from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view. The Board stated opposed mark can be perceived as ‘three-stripes’ deployed inside a vertically long rectangle. On the other hand, opponent’s marks consist of ‘three-stripes’ deployed inside a triangle or parallelogram. Even if Adidas three stripes have acquired remarkable reputation, because of a low degree of similarity and the originality, relevant consumers at the sight of opposed mark would not hesitate to consider a source of opposed mark unrelated to Adidas.
Thus, the Board held it is unlikely that relevant consumers confuse or associate opposed mark with Adidas.

The Board also negated opponent’s allegation of ‘one-point mark’ theory by stating that even if average consumers have tendency to pay less attention to details of a mark when used on apparels with smaller configuration, due to dissimilar impression caused by a different outline (vertically long rectangle, triangle, and parallelogram) of respective mark, opposed mark shall be undoubtedly perceived as a distinctive three-stripes unrelated to Adidas by relevant consumers with an ordinary care.

Besides, from the produced evidences, the Board found it was not foreseen a circumstance to offend public order and morals from registering opposed mark and give harmful effect to the international faith.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded opposed mark shall be irrevocable under Article 4(1)(vii) as well as (xv) and granted registration a status quo.

SWATCH Defeated in SWATCH vs iWATCH Trademark Dispute

Posted on

The Trial Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an invalidation petition by Swiss watch giant, Swatch against TM Reg. no. 5849925 for word mark “iWATCH” owned by U.S. tech giant, Apple Inc.
[Invalidation case no. 2017-890071, Gazette issue date: January 31,2020]

iWATCH

Disputed mark, consisting of a word “iWATCH” in plain block letters (see below), was applied for registration in the name of Apple Inc. on April 25, 2014 in respect of watches, clocks and other goods in class 14.

Immediately after registration on May 13, 2016, Swatch filed an opposition to challenge registrability of disputed mark based on Article 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(vi), 4(1)(xi), 4(1)(xv), 4(1)(xvi) of the Japan Trademark Law, but in vain. [Opposition case no. 2016-900234]

Article 3(1)(iii) is a provision to prohibit any mark from registering where the mark solely consists of elements just to indicate, in a common manner, the place of origin, place of sale, quality, materials, efficacy, intended purpose, quantity, shape (including shape of packages), price, the method or time of production or use.

Article 3(1)(vi) is a comprehensive provision to prohibit any mark lacking inherent distinctiveness from being registered.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to refrain from registering a junior mark which is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entity’s well-known goods or services, to the benefit of brand owner and users’ benefits.

Article 4(1)(xvi) is a provision to prohibit registration of any mark likely to mislead quality of goods or services.

Invalidation Trial

Japan Trademark Law provides a provision to retroactively invalidate trademark registration for specific grounds under Article 46 (1).

In an effort to argue against the opposition decision, Swatch filed a petition for invalidation against disputed mark on October 23, 2017. Swatch argued disputed mark “iWATCH” shall be invalid because of following reasons:

  1. Given disputed mark consists of an alphabet letter “i” and a generic term in relation to a designated goods ‘watch’, the mark can be merely perceived to indicate a value, code, type, mode or standard of ‘watch’. If so, disputed mark shall be lack of distinctiveness and revocable under Article 3(1)(vi) in relation to the goods.
  2. Likewise, relevant consumers would misconceive quality of goods when disputed mark is used on goods other than ‘watch’ in class 14, e.g. jewelry, key holders, jewelry boxes, accessories. If so, disputed mark shall be revocable under Article 4(1)(xvi) in relation to goods other than ‘watch’.
  3. Disputed mark “iWATCH” resembles “SWATCH” from visual and phonetic points of view. It is unquestionable SWATCH has become remarkably famous for watches and fashion items of Swatch Group. If so, a likelihood of confusion will arise between “iWATCH” and “SWATCH” when disputed mark is used on goods in class 14. Thus, disputed mark is revocable under Article 4(1)(xi).

Board Decision

In the decision, the Board sided with Apple Inc. and found that:

  • The Board considers the term “iWATCH” is a coined word in its entirety which does not give rise to any specific meaning at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that relevant consumers conceive disputed mark just as a qualitative indication of goods in question.
  • The Board admits “SWATCH” has been acquired a high degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers and traders as famous watch of Swatch Group. In the meantime, the term appears less unique and creative since it is a dictionary word meaning ‘a sample piece (as of fabric) or a collection of samples’.
  • Difference on initial letter of both marks shall not be negligible on the case. The Board has no good reason to believe both marks are deemed similar from visual, phonetic and conceptual points of view.
  • If so, it is unlikely to happen that relevant consumers with an ordinary care would associate or misconceive disputed mark with Swatch or any entity systematically or economically connected with claimant even when used on ‘watch’.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded “iWATCH” shall be irrevocable in relation to “SWATCH” and dismissed Swatch’s invalidation petition wholly.

Trademark Battle – PUMA vs KUMA

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to invalidate trademark registration no. 5661816 for a stylized word “KUMA”, which means ‘bear’ in Japanese, due to similarity to, and a likelihood of confusion with a world-renowned sports brand, PUMA. [Invalidation case no. 2019-890021, Gazette issue date: January 31,2020]

KUMA mark

Disputed mark (see below),consisting of a stylized word “KUMA” with a partial island shape of Hokkaido, Japan’s most northerly main island, depicted on the inside of letter “U”, was filed on October 24, 2013 by a Japanese business entity having its principal place of business in Hokkaido over various goods in class 25 including sportswear and shoes.

It was found Applicant has used the KUMA mark on T-shirts and other goods with a bear silhouette facing left in the upper right of the mark.

The JPO admitted registration on April 4, 2014 and published for opposition on May 13, 2014.

PUMA’s Opposition / Invalidation Trial

On June 13, 2014, PUMA SE filed an opposition against the KUMA mark based on Article 4(1)(vii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law. PUMA argued relevant consumers or traders are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of disputed mark with PUMA when used on designated goods in class 25 because of a high reputation and close resemblance between PUMA word logo and the KUMA mark.

The Opposition Board admitted a high degree of popularity and reputation of PUMA word logo, however, Board dismissed the opposition entirely due to unlikelihood of confusion because of a low degree of similarity between the marks (Opposition case no. 2014-900177).

Subsequently, PUMA SE entrusted the case to us. On April 3, 2019, just one day before the lapse of five-year Statute of limitations, MARKS IP LAW FIRM on behalf of PUMA SE requested for an invalidation trial and challenged invalidating the KUMA mark based on Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japanese Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law prohibits any mark likely to cause damage to public order or morality from registration.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to refrain from registering a junior mark which is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark on identical or similar goods/service.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits to register a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with a business of other entity.

Article 4(1)(xix) prohibits to register a trademark which is identical with, or similar to, other entity’s famous mark, if such trademark is aimed for unfair purposes, e.g. gaining unfair profits, or causing damage to the entity.

Invalidation Decision

The Invalidation Board reversed the opposition decision and decided in favor of PUMA on all grounds by finding that:

  1. PUMA word logo has been continuously well-known in Japan for a source indicator of PUMA in connection with sports shoes, sportswear and others among relevant consumers and traders.
  2. A mere difference on initial letter of both marks and the Hokkaido island shape shall be insufficient to overturn an overall impression of the mark from visual and phonetic points of view. Conceptually, the KUMA mark, having a meaning of bears in Japanese, would give rise to a similar meaning with PUMA word logo, four-footed mammal. If so, by taking into consideration a high degree of reputation and popularity of PUMA word logo, both marks shall be deemed similar.
  3. Configuration of PUMA word logo looks unique, creative, and impressive in itself.
  4. Besides, given close association between designated goods in class 25 and PUMA’s business, relevant consumers of the goods in question with an ordinary care are likely to confuse its source with PUMA.
  5. It has good reasons to believe that the applicant of disputed mark did fraudulently apply the KUMA mark for registration with an aim to free-ride and dilute PUMA’s goodwill based on totality of the circumstances.
  6. If so, applicant must have filed disputed mark with a malicious intention to dilute or do harm to PUMA’s goodwill, which was impermissible to protect public order and morals

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to invalidate the KUMA mark based on Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) as well as 4(1)(xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

SCOTT Bikes Failed Trademark Opposition against “PRESCOTT”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by SCOTT USA Inc. against trademark registration no. 6025819 for stylized word mark “PRESCOTT” on bicycles in class 12 by finding dissimilarity to “SCOTT”.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900134, Gazette issue date: December 27, 2019]

“PRESCOTT”

Opposed mark, stylized word mark “PRESCOTT” (see below), was filed by a Chinese individual to the JPO on June 19, 2017 by designating ‘electric bicycles, motorized bicycles, bicycles and accessories/structural parts, motorcycles’ in class 12.

The JPO admitted registration on March 9, 2018 and published for registration on April 3, 2018.

Opposition by SCOTT

To contend registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, SCOTT USA Inc. filed an opposition on June 1, 2018.

In the opposition brief, SCOTT USA Inc. asserted the opposed mark shall be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(viii), (xi) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law given a remarkable reputation of opponent mark “SCOTT” to indicate opponent’s mountain bicycles and close resemblance between a senior registration no. 2700543 “SCOTT” in class 12 and opposed mark.

Article 4(1)(viii) prohibits registration of trademarks which contain the representation or name of any person, famous pseudonym, professional name or pen name of another person, or famous abbreviation thereof.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to refrain from registering a junior mark which is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

Article 4(1)(xix) prohibits to register a trademark which is identical with, or similar to, other entity’s famous mark, if such trademark is aimed for unfair purposes, e.g. gaining unfair profits, or causing damage to the entity.

Scott, founded in 1958 in Sun Valley, Idaho, began as a manufacturer of aluminum ski poles before it branched out into a huge range of other sectors in the sporting goods industry. These days the brand produces bikes for a whole range of disciplines, but it cut its teeth with mountain bikes, introducing its first model way back in 1986. Nowadays, as the leading bike manufacturer in Europe, designing and fabricating an extensive line of high-quality mountain bikes, road bikes, kids bikes and urban city bikes, the SCOTT bikes have been ranked top mountain bicycles brands. In Japan, SCOTT USA has progressively promoted the SCOTT bikes through its subsidiary, SCOTT Japan since 2013. SCOTT Japan spent more than 20 million JP-Yen on advertisement annually.

SCOTT USA Inc. argued that these facts are sufficient to demonstrate “SCOTT” has acquired a high degree of reputation and popularity in the field of sports bicycles as an abbreviation or source indicator of opponent. Given the reputation, it is undeniable that applicant of opposed mark must have acquainted with opponent famous mark “SCOTT” before the filing. Besides, opponent mark “SCOTT” is actually used in an italic font (see below) on the bikes, which truly gives rise to a more resembled impression with opposed mark in the mind of consumers visually.

If so, opposed mark “PRESCOTT” shall be revocable because it contains a famous trademark name “SCOTT” without permission of opponent and looks confusingly similar to opponent’s famous mark when used on sports bicycles in fact. It is obvious that the applicant aims to gain unfair profits by free-riding opponent famous trademark.

JPO decision

The Opposition Board denied a certain degree of reputation and popularity of opponent trademark “SCOTT” in connection with mountain bicycles by stating that the produced evidences have no reference to sales amount and total number of participants to promotional events of the SCOTT bikes in Japan. 20 million JP-Yen (approx. USD182,000) for advertising expenses would be anything but a sufficient amount to prove famous bicycle brands.

Even if it is true that SCOTT sold more than 420,000 bicycles in European market in 2010 and achieved the largest market share in the high-end sports bicycles in ten EU countries, e.g. Germany, Norway, Sweden, the Board considers it insufficient to find a high degree of reputation among consumers in specific country in EU from the produced evidences.

In the assessment of mark, the Board held “PRESCOTT” and “SCOTT” are totally dissimilar from visual and phonetical points of view. Unless the Board finds a term “SCOTT” becomes famous in relation to the goods in question, there is no reason to see it as the dominant portion of opposed mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided opposed mark shall not be cancelled on the grounds of Article 4(1)(viii), (xi) and (xix).

I often see the case like this where the JPO gives an unfavorable decision to famous brand owner. One reason is just due to insufficient production of evidences to show its famousness outside of Japan. Provided that Japanese consumers recognize such circumstance in foreign countries, the brand shall be broadly protected under the Japan Trademark Law.

San Miguel defeat in trademark dispute over ‘AGUA MIGUEL’

Posted on

In a recent trademark decision, the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition against TM Reg. no. 6104642 for word mark ‘AGUA MIGUEL’ filed by Philippines-based San Miguel Brewing International Ltd. who argued a likelihood of confusion with its famous beer brand ‘San Miguel’.
[Opposition case no. 2019-900077, Gazette issued on December 27, 2019]

Opposed mark – AGUA MIGUEL

Opposed mark ‘AGUA MIGUEL’ written in standard character was filed in the name of NIPPON BEER CO., LTD., a Japanese importer and wholesaler of beers and beverage from abroad.

The mark was filed to JPO on March 29, 2018 and, without confronting with office action from the JPO examiner, published for registration on January 8, 2019 over the goods of “mineral water” in class 32.

Opposition by San Miguel

On March 8, 2019, before the lapse of a two-months opposition period, San Miguel Brewing International Ltd. filed an opposition. In the opposition, San Miguel contended opposed mark shall be cancelled based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits to register a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with a business of other entity.

Likelihood of confusion is a key criteria when assessing the similarity of trademarks. To establish whether there is likelihood of confusion, the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity will be assessed as well as the goods and/or services involved. This assessment is based on the overall impression given by those marks, account being taken, in particular, of their distinctive and dominant components. A low degree of similarity between the goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa.

San Miguel argued opposed mark is likely to cause confusion with opponent’s beer brand ‘San Miguel’, which occupies 90% of the market share in Philippines and its reputation has been widely known in Asian countries including Japan. Opposed mark consists of terms ‘AGUA’ and ‘MIGUEL’. ‘AGUA’ is less distinctive in relation to mineral water since it means water in Spanish. If so, it is apparent that the portion of ‘MIGUEL’ relatively plays a dominant role of source indicator of opposed mark. Likewise, presumably relevant consumers would pay more attention to the term ‘Miguel’ from famous beer brand. In view of close association between mineral water and beers and resemblance between the marks, it is undeniable that relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive opposed mark with San Miguel or any business entity systematically or economically connected with opponent.

Board decision

The Opposition Board found a low degree of similarity between ‘San Miguel’ and ‘AGUA MIGUEL’ from visual, phonetic and conceptual points of view. Even if the term ‘AGUA’ means water in Spanish, relevant consumers with an ordinary care at the sight of opposed mark would be unlikely to see the portion of ‘MIGUEL’ as a dominant part, but rather gasp opposed mark in its entirety.

The Board found a certain degree of popularity and reputation of beer brand ‘San Miguel’ among traders and beer drinkers, but, to my surprise, the Board questioned if the beer has been widely known among general consumers regardless of continuous domestic use of the mark in commerce since 1972, by stating that produced materials have no reference to actual sales performance in Japan. A mare fact of continuous use for the last 47 years is insufficient and non-objective to demonstrate famousness of the San Miguel beer brand in Japan.

Provided that opponent failed to demonstrate ‘San Miguel’ has been well-known for opponent’s beer among relevant consumers, the Board held that opposed mark is unlikely to cause confuse with opponent or any business entity systematically or economically connected with San Miguel in view of a remote resemblance between both marks. Thus, opposed mark shall not be revocable to Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law and dismissed the opposition entirely.

Empire Steak House loses to trademark its restaurant name in Japan IP High Court battle

Posted on

On December 26, 2019, the Japan IP High Court ruled to uphold a rejection by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) to International Registration no. 1351134 for the mark “EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE” in class 43 due to a conflict with senior trademark registration no. 5848647 for word mark “EMPIRE”. [Judicial case no. Reiwa1(Gyo-ke)10104]

EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE

The case was brought into the IP High Court after the JPO decided to dismiss an appeal (case no. 2018-650052) filed by RJJ Restaurant LLC (Plaintiff), an owner of IR no.1351134 for mark consisting of stylized-words “EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE” in two lines and a golden cow design (see below) on restaurant services; carry-out restaurant services; catering services in class 43.

EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE, one of the top steakhouses in New York City since 2010, has opened their first restaurant aboard on the first floor of the new Candeo Hotel in Roppongi, Tokyo (JPN) on October 17, 2017. To secure the restaurant name in Japan, RJJ Restaurant LLC applied for registration of disputed mark via the Madrid Protocol with a priority date of March 2, 2017 in advance of the opening.

Senior registered mark “EMPIRE”

The JPO rejected disputed mark by citing senior trademark registration no. 5848647 for word mark “EMPIRE” in standard character on grilled meat and sea foods restaurant services in class 43 based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit from registering a junior mark which is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

Senior registered mark was applied for registration on December 8, 2015 and registered on May 13 ,2016. Apparently, senior mark is actually used as a name of restaurant, “Dining Bar Empire”, located in the city of Ueda, Nagano Prefecture (JPN).

To contend against the decision, plaintiff filed an appeal to the IP High Court on July 19, 2019.

IP High Court Decision

Plaintiff argued the literal elements of disputed mark “EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE” shall be assessed in its entirety by citing web articles relating to applicant’s restaurant which referred to the restaurant as Empire Steak House in full. Like ‘Empire State Building’ and ‘Empire Hotel’, the term “EMPIRE” gives rise to unique meaning and plays a role of source indicator as a whole when used in combination with other descriptive word. Besides, disputed mark contains an eye-catching golden cow which attracts attention to relevant consumers. If so, it is evident that the JPO erred in assessing similarity of mark between “EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE” and “EMPIRE”.

The IP High Court, at the outset, mentioned the Supreme Court decision rendered in 2008 which established general rule to grasp a composite mark in its entirety in the assessment of similarity of mark.

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

Next, the court analyzed the configuration of disputed mark and found it is allowed to grasp a literal element “EMPIRE” of disputed mark as dominant portion in light of the criteria applied by the Supreme Court by stating that:

  1. A term “STEAK HOUSE” is commonly used to indicate steak restaurant even in Japan.
  2. Where the term is included in restaurant name, it sometimes happens that relevant consumers over leap the term to shorten the name.
  3. In restaurants, it becomes common practice to display cucina and foodstuffs to be served on signboard or advertisement. Likewise, there are many steak and grilled meat restaurants displaying cow design. If so, relevant consumers at the sight of disputed mark would perceive the cow design as a mere indication to represent foodstuffs at the restaurant.
  4. From appearance, given the configuration of disputed mark, respective element can be considered separable.

Finally, based on the above findings, the court dismissed plaintiff’s arguments and concluded the JPO was correctly assessing similarity of mark. Given dominant portion of disputed mark is identical with the cited mark “EMPIRE” and both marks designate the same or similar services in class 43, disputed mark shall be unregistrable under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.