European Sugar Cone

Kracie, Ltd., a Japanese corporation established in 1887, operating in the business fields of toiletries & cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and foods, filed a trademark application for the stylized wordmark “European Sugar Cone” written in Japanese Katakana character (see below) by designating several goods in Class 30, including ice cream, with the JPO on February 14, 2023. [TM App no. 2023-14684]

“European Sugar Cone” is a long-selling cone ice cream that has been manufactured and marketed by Kracie for nearly four decades (first use in 1986). Since its launch, the “European Sugar Cone” ice cream has been characterized by its distinctive three-layer combination of vanilla ice cream, chocolate coating, and a crispy sugar cone, which together create a well-balanced texture and flavor.

The name comes from the concept of bringing the experience of enjoying cone ice cream—similar to that found at European street-side ice cream shops—into Japanese households.

Examiner’s rejection

The JPO examiner rejected the mark laid down in Article 3(1)(iii) and 4(1)(xvi) of the Japan Trademark Law, because the word “European” suggests that the goods in question come from, or are associated with European countries. The term “Sugar Cone” is commonly used in connection with ice cream to indicate sugar cone ice cream. Therefore, relevant consumers would merely perceive the mark as a descriptive indication of ice cream.

Furthermore, when the mark is used in connection with goods other than ice cream, it may misrepresent the quality of such goods.

Acquired Distinctiveness

On September 2, 2024, Marks IP, on behalf of Kracie, filed an appeal against the examiner’s rejection and requested registration by arguing acquired distinctiveness of the mark “European Sugar Cone” with sufficient evidence based on Article 3(2).

For the purpose of demonstrating acquired distinctiveness of the mark as a commercial origin, we proposed to conduct the brand awareness survey that targets a total of 1,000 men and women aged from 15 to 79 who had purchased an ice cream multipack for the past three months (summer season), and to restrict the designated goods in Class 30 to sugar cone ice cream multipack.

The survey, conducted from October 7 to 9, 2025, revealed 74.9% of the interviewees answered that they knew an ice cream multipack bearing the mark “European Sugar Cone”.

JPO Appeal Board Decision

The JPO Appeal Board noted that the evidence is sufficient to find the mark has acquired distinctiveness for relevant consumers to identify a specific commercial origin of the amended goods (sugar cone ice cream multipack) by stating:

Since its launch in 1986, the goods using the mark have been continuously sold nationwide for nearly 40 years, achieving cumulative sales of over 342 million units and stable annual revenues of JPY 2.5 – 5.4 billion. Since 2020, it has held a market share exceeding 40% in the categories of cone ice cream multipack.

The ice cream has been extensively promoted through television commercials since 1987, including over 1,000 nationwide broadcasts in 2022 alone. It has also ranked highly in consumer preference surveys and gained recognition through third-party media coverage and collaborations across various product fields.

Furthermore, a consumer survey revealed that 74.6% of respondents recognized the goods from the mark itself, indicating a high level of public awareness.

Based on the foregoing, the Board has a reason to believe that the mark has become widely recognized by consumers as identifying the applicant’s cone-type ice cream multipack.

Accordingly, the Board decided to overturn the examiner’s rejection and granted registration of the mark “European Sugar Cone” by applying Article 3(2).

TM Reg no. 6945136

The contested mark (see below) was filed by Thunder Software Technology Co., Ltd., a leading Chinese provider of smart operating system (OS) technologies and services, for use on computer-related goods and services in Classes 9, 41, and 42 with the JPO on December 3, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-129535].

The literal element of the mark appears to be “RUBi Pi” due to a cube design placed between two terms. However, the applicant’s website indicates the contested mark in colors to be read as “RUBIK Pi”.

The JPO examiner did not issue a notice of grounds for refusal. The mark was registered on July 4, 2025, and then published for a post-grant opposition on July 14.

Opposition by SPIN MASTER TOYS UK LIMITED

On September 16, 2025, just before the lapse of statutory opposition period for two months, SPIN MASTER TOYS UK LIMITED filed an opposition against the contested mark and claimed cancellation of its entire registration in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing the earlier marks in connection with the world-famous three-dimensional puzzle cube (Cited mark No. 1 – 6), “RUBIK CUBE”.

The claimant argued that relevant consumers and traders will consider the cube design representing the letter “K,” and thus the contested mark, to be read as “RUBIK” or “RUBIK Pi” in the course of actual business, given that the applicant’s product (a lightweight development board for AI platforms) using the contested mark is offered for sale in the name of “RUBIK Pi” on their website.

Considering that the Cited marks are famous worldwide as an indicator of the claimant’s 3D puzzle cubes, consumers would mistakenly recognize the commercial source of the goods and services in question as being from the claimant or other economically linked undertakings at the sight of the contested mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted the remarkable degree of recognition and popularity of the Cited mark Nos. 3, 5, and 6 as source indicators of the claimant’s business based on the evidence submitted by the claimant. However, the Board questioned whether the other Cited marks, which mainly consist of the term “RUBIK,” have also become famous for identifying the claimant’s source.

Regarding the contested mark, the Board found that its overall configuration would not create the sound of “RUBIK” or “RUBIK Pi.” Instead, the contested mark gives rise to the sound of “RUBi Pi,” but has no clear meaning.

Even if the Cited mark 3 “RUBIK CUBE” has become famous, relevant consumers are unlikely to associate the goods and services in question bearing the contested mark with the Cited marks due to the marks’ low degree of similarity. Therefore, the Board held that the contested mark should not be vulnerable to cancellation based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

LG H&H Co., Ltd., a South Korean consumer products supplier, was ranked the top foreign registrant (176 registrations). JYP Entertainment Corporation, a South Korean multinational entertainment and record label conglomerate, was ranked second (74 registrations) in 2025, a drastic increase from the previous year, when it was ranked at 145th.

Requests for accelerated examination increased to 8,716 by 7.1% in 2025, which enables applicants to obtain trademark registration within 2 months.

For context, the average total time for the entire trademark process at the JPO, from application filing to registration, is 7.8 months, which is 0.5 months longer than the previous year.

You can access and download the full text of “JPO Status Report 2026” from here.

These new amounts will be payable where Japan

1. is designated in an international application received by the Office of origin on or after April 12, 2026; or
2. is the subject of a subsequent designation received by the Office of the Contracting Party of the holder or filed directly with the International Bureau of WIPO on or after that date; or
3. has been designated in an international registration renewed on or after that date.

Click here to read the Madrid System Information Notices.

TM App no. 2024-86220

The disputed mark was filed by a Japanese individual for use on cosmetics in Class 3 with the JPO on August 8, 2024. It appears to be a word consisting of five letters, “UOSIB,” written in bold font, as shown below. You will immediately notice that the third and fifth letters, “S” and “B,” are flipped.

Rejection by the examiner

The JPO examiner raised her objection based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing TM Reg no. 6648235 “BISOU” in Class 3 owned by LOOP Inc.

She had an opinion that relevant consumers would consider the disputed mark as a mirrored spelling of the term “BISOU.” From this viewpoint, the two marks are visually similar. Since both marks create the same meaning and sound of ‘kiss’ in French, consumers are likely to confuse the commercial origin of goods bearing the disputed mark with those bearing the cited mark.

The applicant filed an appeal against the examiner’s rejection on November 20, 2025, and argued dissimilarity of the marks. Simultaneously, the applicant requested an accelerated appeal trial.

JPO Appeal Board decision

On March 2, 2026, the JPO Appeal Board held that the examiner erred in finding the disputed mark and thus erroneously applied Article 4(1)(xi) by stating that:

It makes sense that relevant consumers would understand that the disputed mark starts with “UO,” followed by “S” in mirrored spelling, then “I,” and ends with “B” in mirrored spelling. They would recognize it as a stylized word mark containing some mirrored spellings. Based on this, the disputed mark does not give rise to any meaning and sound. Therefore, even if the goods covered by the disputed mark are deemed identical to those covered by the cited mark, the examiner’s rejection should be annulled due to the examiner’s inappropriate findings regarding the disputed mark.

IR no. 1653013

Zino Davidoff SA, a Swiss Company, filed trademark application for a stylized word mark consisting of  “Cool Water” and “REBORN” arranged in two lines (see below) for use on  Perfumery products; perfumes and eaux de toilette; shower gels; skin lotions for cosmetic use; after-shave preparations; deodorants and antiperspirants for personal use in Class 3 with the JPO via the Madrid Protocol on November 13, 2023.

The applicant promotes Eau de Toilette bearing the mark.

Earlier marks

On October 21, 2024, the JPO examiner decided the mark not eligible for registration under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations for the word mark “Re:born” or its transliteration written in Japanese katakana characters in Class 3.

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

JPO Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board found that the mark should be assessed in its entirety. It is not permissible to dissect the mark into individual parts and make a comparison with the cited marks by stating that:

• Despite the evident divergence in font and size, the terms “Cool Water” and “REBORN”, arranged in two lines, appear to be positioned in a close and unified manner.
• The sound “Cool water reborn” can be articulated as a single, uninterrupted phrase.
• Conceptually, there is no reason for relevant consumers to take more note of the literal element “REBORN,” since “Cool Water” also has a clear meaning.
• Therefore, the consumers are unlikely to see the term “REBORN” dominant in the mark. The Board found no evidence to support that the term plays a significant role in identifying the source of goods in question by taking into consideration actual trade practice in the relevant industry.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the examiner erred in finding similarity of the marks and thus erroneously applied Article 4(1)(xi).

Thom Browne’s signature red, white, and blue stripes

Thom Brown, Inc. filed two trademark applications for a color mark to represent Thom Browne’s signature red, white, and blue stripe (see below) via the Madrid Protocol with the JPO for use on eyewear, eyeglasses, eyeglass frames, and sunglasses in Class 9.

IR 1744718

The applicant specified the mark as “The color(s) white, red, and blue is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of tag, label, and design features comprising five contiguous bands, the first, third, and fifth being white, the second band red, and the fourth band blue; the first and fifth bands are of a smaller width than the second, third, and fourth bands; the dashed-lined border is included merely for perspective and is not part of the mark.”

IR 1750744

The applicant specified the mark as “The color(s) white, red, and blue is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a design feature comprising five contiguous bands, the first, third, and fifth being white, the second band red, and the fourth band blue. The first and fifth bands are of a smaller width than the second, third, and fourth bands. The dashed lines adjacent the first and fifth bands, and the dashed line depiction of an eyeglass frame, are included merely for perspective and are not part of the mark.”

The JPO examiner rejected the marks on two grounds.

• A lack of inherent distinctiveness; and
• Non-conformity to the requisites of a color mark. In this respect, the examiner considered above marks do not solely consist of colors, but contain a figurative element.

Apparently, the JPO considers that if an applicant does not indicate a specific position of the color mark, the constituent color(s) should be outlined in a straight line only and not surrounded on all four sides by other colors. In this respect, the following were rejected as a color mark due to nonconformity with the requirements.

Where an applicant requests registration of a color mark on a specific position in connection with designated goods, constituent color(s) should be outlined in a straight line only or painted on the relevant component entirely, and not be surrounded on all four sides by other colors. Following color marks with a specific position were rejected on this ground.

TM App no. 2025-12124

On February 6, 2025, Thom Brown, Inc. filed a trademark application for the same color (see below) directly with the JPO for use on eyeglasses, eyeglass frames, sunglasses, eyeglass cases, eyeglass holders, eyeglass chains, and eyeglass cords in Class 9.

On August 26, 2025, the JPO examiner issued a notice of refusal grounds only for a lack of inherent distinctiveness laid down in Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

As the applicant did not respond to the office action, the JPO decided to reject the entire application on February 24, 2026. The decision is appealable by May 24, 2026.

TM App no. 2025-128977 (examination pending)

Seemingly, in anticipation of the refusal, Thom Brown, Inc. filed a trademark application for the color as a position mark with the JPO in the name of a local subsidiary, Thom Brown Japan Co., Ltd., for use on the same goods, on November 10, 2025 [TM App no. 2025-128977].

ACLOTT

HARIZURY Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application for the word mark “ACLOTT” with its Japanese transliteration arranged in two lines (see below) for use on school bags, bags, pouches, leathercloth, and leather items in Class 18 with the JPO on March 1, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-20955].

The mark was registered without any refusal from the JPO examiner [TM Reg no. 6875775]. On December 23, 2024, it was published for a post-grant opposition.

Opposition by Capri

On February 20, 2025, Capri S.r.l., an Italian Fashion House, filed an opposition against the mark “ACLOTT” by citing IR no. 878382 for wordmark “ALCOTT” in Classes 3,14,18, and 25, and claimed the contested mark should be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law because of close resemblance to the cited mark “ALCOTT”.

Capri argued that the contested mark looks and sounds similar to the cited mark, since the difference in the second and third letters will not outweigh the commonality of the remaining four letters. Even if a conceptual comparison is neutral since neither mark has any clear meaning, in view of a similar commercial impression of the marks when used on the goods in Class 18, relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods bearing the contested mark with the cited mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board assessed the similarity of the marks in aspects of appearance, sound, and concept.

• Appearance

The contested mark and the cited mark are sufficiently distinguishable in appearance due to the distinction arising from the reversed order of the second and third letter, “C” and “L,” of a relatively short six-letter composition.

• Sound

Comparing respective sounds, the difference in the second and third syllables of a short five-syllable configuration significantly affects the overall phonetic impression. Relevant consumers will be able to distinguish these sounds with ordinary care.

• Concept

As both marks have no specific meaning, a conceptual comparison is neutral.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found that relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse the source of the goods in question with the cited mark, and thus both marks are deemed dissimilar. Consequently, the Board dismissed the entire opposition.

OneClick

Osstem Implant Co., Ltd., a Korean dental implant company, filed a trademark application for the wordmark “OneClick” in standard character for use on computer software for management of medical devices or the database in Class 9 with the JPO on June 14, 2024.

Rejection by examiner

The JPO examiner notified a ground for refusal laid down in Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

In the refusal decision, the examiner noted that the term “OneClick” has the meaning of “pressing a computer-mouse button to operate a computer.” Computer software operable with a single click has been distributed in relevant industries.

Therefore, the consumers who encounter the term when used on the goods at issue, will just recognize it as a functional indication of the goods.

The applicant argued that the mark is mainly intended for use on computer software in highly specialized business fields such as medical institutions and insurance claims processing, and that its users are limited to medical professionals and specialized staff. Consequently, the mark does not directly indicate the feature or quality of the goods “operable with a single click.”

The examiner did not find the arguments persuasive based on the fact that the applicant’s identified goods are not limited to medical use and include the goods used in a wide range of business fields, such as “computer software for databases” and “computer programs for image processing.”

On August 20, 2025, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection and disputed the inherent distinctiveness of the mark.

Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board decided to revoke the examiner’s rejection laid down in Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law by stating that:

Even though the term “OneClick” has a meaning of “a single click of the button on a computer mouse,” it is doubtful whether relevant consumers would immediately recognize it as an indication of the specific function or quality of the goods in question.

 Ex officio investigation did not reveal any evidence to suggest that the term “OneClick” or its equivalent is actually and commonly used to indicate the function or quality of goods in the relevant business field. Besides, the Board could not find circumstances to negate the distinctiveness of the mark as a source indicator when used on, or in connection with goods in question.

Based on the foregoing, it has reason to believe that the mark “OneClick” can play a role in identifying the source of the goods in question, and thus it will not be a mark consisting solely of a term indicating the quality of the identified goods in a manner commonly used.

Finto

Visional Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application for the word mark “Finto” in standard character for use on computer software and other computer-related goods in Class 9 with the JPO on May 26, 2026. [TM App no. 2025-57051]

Fi.n.t

On June 4, 2025, the JPO examiner gave the applicant a notice of ground for refusal laid down in Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier TM Reg no. 5547097 for a word mark “Fi.n.t” with its Japanese transliteration (see below) in Class 9 that has been effectively registered since 2012.

The applicant filed a response to the office action on July 9, 2025, and argued dissimilarity of the marks. However, the examiner did not withdraw his refusal and finally decided to reject the entire application on July 25.

The applicant filed an appeal against the examiner’s rejection on October 22, 2025, and argued dissimilarity of the marks.

Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board noted that the term “Finto” is not listed in standard dictionaries. As no circumstances are confirmed to suggest its specific meaning in Japan, it will be recognized as a coined word. Therefore, the mark has a sound of “finto” and does not elicit any particular connotations.

Regarding the cited mark, the Board observed that it comprises the letters “Fi.n.t” and their Japanese katakana transliteration, arranged in two lines. It is regular to refrain from pronouncing two dots placed in the middle of the letters. From overall appearance, it is reasonable to find that the cited mark also has a sound of “finto” and no meaning in its entirety.

Due to the clear distinctions in literal configuration, the number of letters, and the presence and absence of “,” / “o,” visual impressions differ remarkably to the extent that relevant consumers can distinguish two marks in appearance. Evidently, both marks have the same sound. A conceptual comparison is neutral as neither of the concepts has a clear meaning.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found that even if the marks have common sound and the conceptual comparison is neutral, given that the marks are sufficiently distinguishable in appearance, relevant consumers will not confuse the source of goods in question bearing the mark “Finto” with the cited mark. If so, the Board has reason to believe that they are dissimilar as a whole.