The Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s rejection of TM App no. 2024-64572 for the wordmark “OneClick” in Class 9 by finding that the term can play a role in identifying a source of the goods in question.
[Appeal case no. 2025-13091, decided on January 22, 2026]
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.