カテゴリー: Similarity of service

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”.

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).

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

Posted on

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

TM App no. 2023-99199

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

Article 4(1)(xi)

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

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

JPO Appeal Board decision

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

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

In assessing similarity of mark, the Board held:

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

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

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

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

COSME MUSEUM vs Cosmetic Museum

Posted on

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

COSME MUSEUM

CEL-ENA Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application for the wordmark “COSME MUSEUM” (Contested mark) with the JPO on February 24, 2023. It designates various services classified in class 35, including retail or wholesale services for cosmetics (TM App no. 2023-18992).

The applicant owns the domain “cosme-museum.com” and uses the contested mark on the domain’s web pages.

https://cosme-museum.com/

The JPO examiner granted registration of the contested mark on August 9, 2023 without issuing a notice of refusal. Upon payment of the statutory registration fee, the mark was registered on October 19, 2023 [TM Reg no. 6746429].

Cosmetic Museum

MOMOTANIJUNTENKAN Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application for the wordmark “Cosmetic Museum” in standard character with the JPO on February 16, 2023 (8 days prior to the contested mark) for use on breath freshening preparations, deodorants for animals, soaps and detergents, dentifrices, bath preparations, not for medical purposes, perfumes and flavor materials, incense, false nails, false eyelashes, and cosmetics in class 3 (TM App no. 2023-16082) in order to secure online use of the mark in connection with cosmetics on its websites under the domain “cosmeticmuseum.jp”.

https://cosmeticmuseum.jp/shop

The JPO registered the earlier mark on July 13, 2023 (3 months prior to the contested mark) [TM Reg no. 6717335].

On March 28, 2024, five months after the registration of the contested mark, MONOTANIJUNTENKAN filed an invalidation petition with the JPO requesting that the contested mark be retroactively annulled based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision that prohibits the registration of a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, any earlier registered mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Invalidation Board found the contested mark “COSME MUSEUM” is dissimilar to the cited mark “Cosme Museum” by stating that:

Firstly, comparing the appearance of the contested mark and the cited mark, there are visual distinctions in the presence or absence of the term “tic”, and the upper-case letters or lower-case letters consisting of respective mark. Therefore, the Board has a reason to believe that two marks are clearly distinguishable, and unlikely to cause confusion in appearance.

Secondly, the pronunciation of the contested mark and that of the cited mark clearly differ in the presence or absence of a “tic” sound in the middle, and are clearly audible.

Thirdly, both marks do not give rise to any specific meaning at all. In this regard, they are not comparable in conception.

Based on the foregoing, even if the contested mark and the cited mark are conceptually incomparable, they are unlikely to cause confusion due to a low degree of similarity in appearance and pronunciation. Taking a global view of the impression, memory, and association that the relevant consumers will have from the appearance, sound and concept of the marks, the Board has a reason to believe that the contested mark “COSME MUSEUM” should be found dissimilar to the earlier mark “Cosmetic Museum” and unlikely to cause confusion.”

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

COSTCO vs MINICOS

Posted on

In a trademark opposition regarding a likelihood of confusion between the mark “COSTCO” and “MINICOS” in relation to retail or wholesale services, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) found no confusion with the American mega-chain Costco.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900059, decided on November 6, 2024]

MINICOS

The contested mark, consisting of the terms “MINICOS” and “RETAIL SHOP” arranged in two lines with five-star devices (see below), was filed with the JPO on October 31, 2023 for use in retail or wholesale services for food and beverages in Class 35.

The applicant uses the mark in their retail and online shops that resell the food and beverages purchased at Costco Wholesale.

As the applicant requested the JPO to accelerate examination procedure, the examiner granted registration of the MINICOS mark in two months without issuing any office action.

Accordingly, the mark was officially registered on December 27, 2023 (TM Reg no. 6766577) and published for a post-grant opposition on January 11, 2024.

Opposition

MINISO Hong Kong Limited filed an opposition on March 8, 2024 to contest validity of the mark based on Article 4(1)(vii) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing the earlier mark “COSTCO”.

The opponent argued that the applicant undoubtedly has knowledge of Costco Wholesale in view of their business and that the relevant consumers are likely to associate the contested mark with Costco because of the concept of “a small-size Costco retail store” and the same color combinations of red and blue.

In light of the relatedness between the Costco Wholesale business and the services in question as well as the high level of recognition of the cited mark among Japanese consumers, it is likely to cause confusion with Costco Wholesale when the contested mark is used in connection with the retail services for food and beverages.

JPO Decision

Astonishingly, the JPO Opposition Board questioned famousness of the cited mark among Japanese consumers because of insufficient evidence to show sales, market share, advertisement and promotional activities by Costco in Japan.

Besides, the Board found that given the cited mark has not acquired a high degree of recognition, the contested mark would not give rise to any specific meaning. If so, there is no reason to find similarity between the contested mark and the cited mark from visual, aural and conceptual points of view.

Even if the Costco Wholesale business is highly related to the contested services, given the low degree of similarity between the marks, the Board has reason to believe that the relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse a source of the services represented by the contested mark with Costco.

A mere fact that the applicant filed the contested mark with a knowledge of Costco in their business to resell the food and beverages purchased at Costco Wholesale is irrelevant to find fraudulent intention to obtain unjustifiable benefit from it.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to dismiss the opposition entirely.

IP High Court Found “Medical Equipment” Similar to “Rental of Medical Equipment”

Posted on

On November 11, 2024, the Japan IP High Court overturned the JPO decision that found “Medical Apparatus and Instrument” in Class 10 dissimilar to “Rental of Medical Apparatus and Instrument” in Class 44.
[Court case no. Reiwa6(Gyo-ke)10028]

Disputes

G-Wave Co., Ltd. has obtained trademark registration for word mark “AWG治療” (it means AWG treatment) over “medical apparatus and instrument” in Class 10 since Jan 17, 2020 (TM Reg no. 6217436).

Subsequently, a third party filed a trademark application for the same mark in connection with “rental of medical apparatus and instrument” and other services of Class 44 on October 21, 2019.

According to the Trademark Examination Guidelines for Similar Goods and Services, the similar group code of “medical apparatus and instrument” is 10D01. In the meantime, “rental of medical apparatus and instrument” has 42X09.

Under the JPO practice, it has been considered that the goods or services which have the same similar group codes are presumed to be similar to each other in principle even in different classes. In other words, as long as the code is different, the goods and services are presumed to be dissimilar even if they belong to the same class.

Based on the established practice, the JPO granted registration of the junior mark (TM Reg no. 6320554) on November 25, 2020, without questioning a conflict with the earlier mark.

On June 30, 2023, G-Wave CO., Ltd. filed a partial invalidation action against the junior mark with the JPO due to similarity between “rental of medical apparatus and instrument” of Class 44 and “medical apparatus and instrument” of Class 10 in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

JPO decision

On February 8, 2024, not surprisingly, the JPO Invalidation Board decided to dismiss the entire allegations by stating that the business entities involved in manufacturing and selling of the goods and those providing the service are fundamentally different. Moreover, the intended use and purpose, the place where the goods are sold is not the same as the place where the service is provided. Therefore, even if they may coincide in some of consumers, taking into account the general and constant practice in the course of trade, the Board has reason to believe that the goods and services in question are dissimilar [Invalidation case no. 2023-890053].

G-Wave Co., Ltd. filed an appeal with the IP High Court on March 19, 2024, seeking invalidation of the junior mark in connection with “rental of medical apparatus and instrument” in Class 44.

IP High Court ruling

In determining the similarity of goods and services, the court considered factors such as related business entities, purpose, distribution channel, and consumers.

  1. Relatedness of business entities
    • The judges paid great attention to the fact that 68.8% of the companies that are members of the Japan Medical Industry Association (JMIA) and are licensed to manufacture, sell or rent medical equipment have both licenses. This means that about two-thirds of the companies that manufacture or sell medical equipment can engage in the rental business as well.
  2. Purpose
    • The rental of medical equipment aims to provide the goods for medical purposes. If so, the purpose of the service will be common to the use of medical equipment.
  3. Distribution channel
    • The sale and rental of medical equipment both take place at the company’s place of business or on its internet website. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the distribution channel of the goods and services in question is in many cases the same.
  4. Consumers
    • Respective consumers are substantially overlapping since both include medical institutions and general consumers.

In light of the foregoing, the court found that relevant traders and consumers are likely to confuse a source of the service “rental of medical equipment” using the mark “AWG治療” with the goods “medical equipment” bearing the same mark. Accordingly, the JPO errored in evaluating similarity between “medical apparatus and instrument” in Class 10 and “rental of medical apparatus and instrument” in Class 44, and decided to cancel the decision.

Trademark dispute: “Ⓗ REWARDS” vs “REWARDS”

Posted on

In a recent decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) found that a junior mark consisting of Circled “H” and a word “REWARDS” is dissimilar to earlier trademark “REWARDS” and decided to overturn the examiner’s refusal.
[Appeal case no. 2024-1366, decided on August 6, 2024]

Applied mark

H WORLD HOLDINGS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. filed a trademark application with the JPO on August 2, 2022. for a mark consisting of a circled “H” device and the word “REWARDS” (see below) in connection with various services of Classes 35 and 43.

Cited mark

On December 5, 2023, the JPO examiner decided to reject the applied mark due to a conflict with earlier TM Reg no. 5017950 for wordmark “REWARDS” in standard character for use on various services in classes 35 and 39 based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

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

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection with the JPO on January 25, 2024.

JPO decision

Astonishingly, the JPO Appeal Board found the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited mark by stating that:

The applied mark is composed of the alphabet “H” in circle and a word “REWARDS”. Despite the slight separation between “H” and “REWARDS”, as these letters are represented in the same typeface and alphabets in a horizontal line, it rather gives a coherent impression in appearance.

 Although the word “REWARDS” is an English word denoting the plural form of “REWARD,” in a coherent composition like the applied mark, the applied mark will be simply recognized as representing a coined word consisting of the words “H REWARDS.”

If so, the applied mark would give rise to a sound of ‘H REWARDS’, but no specific meaning as a whole.

Comparing the applied mark with the cited mark, regardless of the fact that both marks share the word “REWARDS,” two marks are visually distinguishable by virtue of the presence or absence of the circled letter “H”.

Likewise, both marks are distinguishable in sound because of the presence or absence of the initial component sound that remarkably alters the overall tone and nuance.

From a conceptual point of view, the applied mark does not give rise to a specific meaning, whereas the cited mark has a meaning of “ something given in exchange for good behavior or good work, etc.” There is no room to find conceptual similarity between the marks.

Based on the above findings, the Board noted that the applied mark is sufficiently distinguishable from the cited mark and unlikely to cause confusion with the cited mark when used in relation to the services in question.

Therefore, even though the services sought for registration by the applied mark are deemed similar to the service designated under the cited mark, given the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited mark, it is inappropriate to apply Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

Accordingly, the Board decided to overturn the examiner’s rejection and granted protection of the applied mark.

Acceptable goods and services for Metaverse and NFTs

Posted on

On March 29, 2024, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) released a new Trademark Examination Manual 46.02 regarding adequate goods and services in connection with the Metaverse and NFTs.

Virtual goods

  1. “Virtual goods” is unacceptable as a goods because of broad and vague description.
  2. Acceptable description (examples in virtual clothing) [similarity code]
    • Cl. 9: Downloadable virtual clothing [11C01, 24E02, 26D01]
    • Cl. 9: Downloadable computer programs for displaying clothing in virtual environments [24E02, 26D01]
    • Cl. 9: Downloadable image files for displaying clothing in virtual environments [24E02, 26D01]
    • Cl. 35: Online retail services for downloadable virtual clothing [11C01, 24E02, 26D01, 35K08, 35K15, 35K99]
    • Cl. 41: Providing online images for displaying clothing in virtual environment [41E02]
    • Cl. 42: Providing computer programs on data networks for displaying clothing in virtual environments [42X11]
  3. Unacceptable description
    • Cl. 9: virtual goods (clothing)
    • Cl. 9: downloadable virtual goods
    • Cl. 9: downloadable virtual living ware
    • Cl. 9: downloadable computer programs for displaying goods in virtual environments
    • Cl. 9: downloadable image files for displaying goods in virtual environments
    • Cl. 35: retail services for downloadable virtual goods
    • Cl. 35: retail services for downloadable virtual foods and beverages
    • Cl. 41: providing online images for displaying goods in virtual environment
    • Cl. 42: Providing computer programs on data networks for displaying goods in virtual environments
  4. Inappropriate class
    • Cl. 25: downloadable virtual clothing
    • Cl. 25: virtual clothing

Services in connection with the Metaverse

  1. Acceptable description (examples)
    • Metaverse Platformers
      • Cl. 38: providing chatrooms in virtual environments [42X11]
      • Cl. 42: hosting software platforms for virtual environment-based work collaboration [42X11]
    • Service provider on the Metaverse
      • Cl. 35: marketing through product placement for others in virtual environments [35A01, 35A02, 35B01]
      • Cl. 36: online banking services renders in virtual environments [36A01]
      • Cl. 41: simulated travel services provided in virtual environments for entertainment purposes [41F06]
      • Cl. 41: online game services provided via virtual environments [41K01, 41Z99]
  2. Similarity code
    • Identical code is used when a service provided in the Metaverse achieves the same purpose and outcome as a service in the real world
      • Cl. 35: advertising for other in virtual environments [35A01]
      • Cl. 41: presentation of music concerts in virtual environments [41E03]
    • Different code is used when a service provided in the Metaverse does not achieve the same purpose and outcome as a service in real world
      • Cl. 41: simulated restaurant services provided in virtual environments for entertainment purposes [41K01, 41Z99] (cf. Cl. 43: restaurant services [42B01])

NFTs

  1. “NFT” is unacceptable as a goods and service because of broad and vague description.
  2. Acceptable description (examples) [similarity code]
    • Cl. 9: Downloadable computer software applications for minting non-fungible tokens [NFTs] [11C01]
    • Cl. 9: Downloadable digital image files authenticated by non-fungible tokens [NFTs] [24E02, 26D01]
    • Cl. 25: clothing authenticated by non-fungible tokens [NFTs] [17A01, 17A02, 17A03, 17A04, 17A07]
    • Cl. 35: purchasing of digital image files authenticated by non-fungible tokens [NFTs] [35B01]
    • Cl. 36: management of crypto assets authenticated by non-fungible tokens [NFTs] [36A01]
    • Cl. 42: Providing online non-downloadable computer software for minting non-fungible tokens [NFTs] [42X11]
  3. Unacceptable description
    • Non-fungible tokens [NFTs]
    • Online retail services for non-fungible tokens [NFTs]
    • Provision of an online marketplace for buyers and sellers of non-fungible tokens [NFTs]

COCO vs. KOKO

Posted on

In a recent administrative decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) found that the trademarks “CoCo” and “koko” are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900250, decided on March 25, 2024]

“koko”

A wordmark “koko” in standard character was applied for registration with the JPO by a Japanese individual in relation to services of class 35, 41 and 42 including educational and instruction services relating to arts, crafts, sports or general knowledge (cl. 41) on October 7, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-115511).

The JPO examiner issued an office action due to a conflict with TM Reg nos. 6327674 and 6327645 for the mark “KOKO HOTELS” and IR no. 950884-A for the mark “KOKO”.

The applicant was successful in a partial non-use cancellation action to IR no. 950884-A and argued in a response dissimilarity of the mark between “KOKO HOTELS” and “koko”.

Consequently, the examiner withdrew her rejection and granted protection of the mark “koko” on September 8, 2023. After registration (TM Reg no. 6737526), the mark was published for a post-grand opposition on September 28, 2023.

Trademark Opposition

The owner of earlier TM Reg no. 6167547 for wordmark “CoCo” filed a partial opposition on November 6, 2023, and claimed cancellation of the mark “koko” in relation to educational and instruction services relating to arts, crafts, sports or general knowledge of class 41 based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registration of a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, an earlier registered mark.

The claimant argued that the opposed mark “koko” shall be deemed similar to “CoCo” since both marks have the same sound. Besides, the service “educational and instruction services relating to arts, crafts, sports or general knowledge” is similar to ballet school services in class 41 designated by the cited mark. Therefore, the opposed mark is subject to cancellation in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi).

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found the opposed mark “koko” is a coined word without any specific meaning. In the meantime, the cited mark “CoCo” has a meaning of the coconut palm as described in English dictionary.

The Board stated when comparing visual aspect of respective mark, overall impressions are different and unlikely to cause confusion because as they differ in the first and third letters “k” and “C” among four letters in total.

Although both marks share the same sound, the Board believes that they are sufficiently distinguishable in terms of concept and appearance regardless of similarity in respective service. Therefore, it is unlikely that relevant consumers will confuse the source of the service in question based on a global assessment of visual, phonetic, and conceptual factors.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire opposition and decided the opposed mark shall not be subject to Article 4(1)(xi).

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

Posted on

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.

However, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently announced that evidence must be provided in addition to a consent letter obtained from the earlier registrant when applying Article 4(4) of the Japan Trademark Law. This evidence must convince the JPO examiner that there is no likelihood of confusion between earlier and junior marks, not only at present but also in the future.

Article 4(4) of the Japan Trademark Law, which is newly introduced in April, states:

Trademark applications will not be rejected under Article 4(1)(xi) as long as the applicant obtains consent from the owner of the cited mark and it is unlikely to cause confusion with the cited owner or its exclusive or non-exclusive licensee when used on goods or services designated under the application.

Trademark examination guidelines for Article 4(4) provides:

  1. The requirement of being ‘unlikely to cause confusion’ must be satisfied not only at the time of the JPO examiner’s decision, but also in the future.
  2. To satisfy the requirement, the following factors will be assessed:
    • Similarity between marks
    • Recognition of mark
    • Uniqueness of mark
    • Significance of mark (House mark or product brand)
    • Possibility of business expansion
    • Relatedness of goods and service
    • Consumers
    • Trade practices involving actual use of mark
  3. Where both marks are identical and used on same goods and service, the examiner will find “likely to cause confusion” in principle.
  4. Applicant will be required to provide evidence to demonstrate unlikelihood of confusion based on actual use of both marks. For instance,
    • Different color, font or combination between literal element and figurative element of respective mark
    • Different position to place the mark or to accompany with other distinctive mark
    • Difference in speific purpose or price of respective goods
    • Different sales channel
    • Different seasons to use the mark
    • Different territory to use the mark
    • Mutual covenants to take necessary actions if confusion is likely to occur between the marks
  5. An agreement between the parties not to change the present use or configuration of both marks in the future will be required to strengthen the unlikelihood of confusion in the future.

It is important to note that “letter of consent” is not available to trademark applications filed with the JPO before April 1, 2024, even if they are pending examination.

Similarly, international registrations that were registered at the WIPO or subsequently designated to Japan before April 1, 2024, can’t make use of the consent.