G-BOOST

UNI WORLD Co., Ltd. filed wordmark “G-BOOST” in standard character for use on ‘gloves for protection against accidents; clothing for protection against accidents; protective industrial shoes; dust masks’ in class 9 and ‘clothing; footwear; gloves; thermal gloves; sports shoes; sportswear; socks’ in class 25 on March 30, 2020.

The applicant promotes worker gloves bearing the mark “G-BOOST.”

The JPO granted protection of the mark on March 30, 2021, and published for opposition on May 25, 2021.

Opposition by Adidas

On July 14, 2021, Adidas AG filed an opposition and argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), and 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law due to a conflict with earlier trademark registrations pertinent to Adidas BOOST shoes, namely, TM Reg nos. 5212257 “BOOST” and 5941352 “ULTRABOOST” on shoes and sports shoes in class 25.

Allegedly, Adidas introduced Boost in 2013 as its revolutionary cushioning system, which provided the highest energy return in any running sneaker. The technology was designed to provide runners with soft cushioning and long-lasting energy that more rigid sneakers couldn’t.

Adidas argued the opposed mark “G-BOOST” is confusingly similar to “BOOST” because the term “BOOST” shall be a prominent portion of the opposed mark given an alphabetical letter “G” perse lacks distinctiveness in relation to the goods in question. Besides, “BOOST” has become famous as a source indicator of Adidas in relation to running shoes. If so, relevant consumers are likely to confuse the source of goods bearing the opposed mark with Adidas.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board did not admit a certain degree of reputation and popularity of the BOOST mark as a source indicator of Adidas running shoes among relevant consumers in Japan by stating that the opponent failed to produce sufficient evidence to disclose sales figures, market share, and advertising expenditures, media space and time of the goods bearing the BOOST mark even though the opponent produced evidence to demonstrate marketing campaign for the BOOST shoes in Japan.

In addition, the Board compared “G-BOOST” with “BOOST” as a whole and negated the similarity of the marks because of a clear distinction in appearance and sound.

Given the low degree of similarity of the mark and unproved famousness of the opponent mark, the Board has no reason to believe relevant consumers would confuse a source of the goods bearing the opposed mark with Adidas.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations and decided the opposed mark shall remain valid as the status quo.

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.

Opposed mark

Opposed mark “adidog”, a word mark in standard character, was filed on October 17, 2016 by an individual, designating clothing for pets in class 18 and published for registration on November 21, 2017 without confronting with office action from the JPO examiner.

TRADEMARK OPPOSITION – Article 4(1)(xv)

On January 16, 2018, before the lapse of a two-months opposition period, Adidas AG filed an opposition to opposed mark. In the opposition, Adidas AG contended opposed mark shall be cancelled based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

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

Adidas AG argued opposed mark is likely to cause confusion with Adidas’ renowned trade name “adidas”, which enjoyed a high degree of reputation as a source indicator of Adidas sportswear and sports shoes both in Japan and abroad, because of visual resemblance between and opposed mark “adidog”, and close relatedness/proximity of goods in question.

Opposition Board decision

The Board found that:

1. It is unquestionable that trade name “Adidas” has acquired a remarkable degree of reputation well before the filing date of opposed mark as a result of continuous use on sportswear and marketing activities in Japan since 1971.
2. “Adidas”, coined after the name of opponent’s founder ‘Adi Dassler’, is an invented word with no dictionary and other known meaning. Besides, the Board could not find any words starting with ‘adid’ in language dictionaries of English, French, German and Italian as well as registered trademarks with the prefix ‘adid’ in Japan other than opponent mark.
3. Opposed mark, consisting of six alphabets, starts with ‘adid’. In the meantime, stylized 5^th letter ‘a’ of opponent mark looks like a device combining a short vertical bar with ‘o’. The final letter ‘s’ gives rise to a similar impression with ‘g’ since both letters have the same way of writing and configuration with a digit – ‘8’. Thus, opposed mark shall be deemed similar to “adidas” from appearance and sound.
4. Clothing for pets is one of fashion items consumed by general public. Sportswear is also consumed by general public not only for exercise use but also fashion items. It becomes apparent that distributors of sports gears, apparels, bags, and shoes also deal with clothing for pets nowadays. If so, both goods shall be closely related.

Based on the above findings, the Board concluded that consumers who are accustomed to the circumstance, are likely to confuse clothing for pets using opposed mark with Adidas’ famous trade name “adidas” or misconceive a source from any entity systematically or economically connected with Adidas AG. Thus, opposed mark shall be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

Opposed mark

Opposed mark (see below) was applied for registration on June 16, 2016 over shoes in class 25 by Marubeni Footwear, a Japanese business entity, and published for registration on February 27, 2018.

Opposition by Adidas

On April 24, 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.

Trademark Examination Guidelines set forth criteria for the article and examples.
Among others, “Trademarks whose registration is contrary to the order predetermined under the Trademark Act and is utterly unacceptable for lack of social reasonableness in the background to the filing of an application for trademark registration.”

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, 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.

Given opponent mark has been substantially used in various colors, length, and configurations, average consumers with an ordinary care of shoes who have been quite familiar with Adidas are likely to associate opposed mark with Adidas’ three-stripes. Inter alia, when each stripe of opposed mark is used in different color on side upper sole and a space between the stripes (upper sole fabric) has other color, and thus opposed mark looks like depicting three stripes on shoes, it is highly anticipated that relevant consumers would confuse its source with opponent.

Opposition 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 since opposed mark can be clearly perceived as ‘two-stripes’. Even if Adidas three stripes has acquired remarkable reputation, average consumers of sports shoes would not mistake two stripes for three stripes in purchasing shoes with opposed mark.
If so, the Board believes it is unlikely that relevant consumers confuse or associate opposed mark with Adidas.

The Board also negated opponent’s allegation of a possible ‘three-stripes’ appearance under specific color combination by stating that opposed mark is nothing but a two-stripes design mark. The space in between two stripes does not constitute opposed mark. If so, the allegation shall be irrelevant to the case.

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 not be revocable under Article 4(1)(vii) as well as (xv) and granted registration a status quo.

[Opposition case no. 2017-900267, Gazette issued on December 28, 2018]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark (see below), in the name of a Chinese business entity, was applied for registration on December 30, 2016 by designating apparels, shoes, headgear and other goods in class 25.

The JPO, going through the substantive examination, published opposed mark for registration on July 18, 2017.

Adidas Trefoil logo

Adidas AG, opponent, filed an opposition on August 31, 2017 and claimed that opposed mark shall be retroactively cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law due to a likelihood of confusion with Adidas Trefoil logo (see below).

Article 4(1)(xv)

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 both brand owner and consumers.

Opposition

Adidas argued that the figurative element of opposed mark evidently gives rise to a same impression with the Trefoil logo in view of basic configurations consisting of two or three laurel leaves intersected by two or three stripes in parallel. Being that the Trefoil logo has been mainly used on sports clothes and sports gear and often seen with athletes during the race and game, consumers are accustomed to conceiving it even at a partial sight of the logo.

Besides, taking account of reputation and popularity of the Trefoil logo and visual resemblance between the marks, relevant consumers are likely to consider opposed mark as a variation of the Trefoil logo and confuse or connect it with Adidas when used on goods in question.

Board decision

The Opposition Board admitted a high degree of reputation, popularity and originality to the iconic Adidas Trefoil logo in relation to sport clothes, casual wear and footwear at the time of initial filing and registration of opposed mark.

Regarding similarity of the marks, the Board considered relevant consumers are likely to have impressions that opposed mark contains dominant portions of a world-famous opponent mark and redesigned the Trefoil logo in part.

Since apparels and shoes designated under opposed mark are for daily use and consumed by the general public, it is evident that usage, purpose and consumers of the goods are same with that of sport clothes, casual wear and footwear on which the opponent has been using the Trefoil logo.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded relevant consumers are likely to confuse or connect a source of the opposed mark with Adidas AG or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent when used on goods in question. If so, opposed mark shall be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

Opposed mark

Opposed mark (see below) was applied for registration on June 10, 2016 by designating apparels and shoes of class 25 in the name of a Chinese business entity and published for registration on November 18, 2016 without confronting with office action from the JPO examiner.

Adidas Trefoil logo

Adidas AG, opponent, filed an opposition on February 9, 2017 and claimed that opposed mark shall be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(vii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law due to a conflict with Adidas Trefoil logo (see below).

Article 4(1)(vii)

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

Trademark Examination Guidelines set forth examples to apply the article, e.g. trademarks generally considered contrary to the international faith, trademarks whose registration is utterly unacceptable for lack of social reasonableness in the background to the filing of an application for trademark registration.

Given a high degree of reputation and popularity of Adidas Trefoil logo, Adidas asserted, applicant must have been aware of the trefoil logo and filed opposed mark with a malicious intention to impermissibly cause the disorder in domestic and foreign trade

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 the figurative element of opposed mark evidently gives rise to a same impression with the Trefoil logo in view of basic configurations consisting of two or three laurel leaves intersected by two or three stripes in parallel.

Besides, applicant has filed more than 253 trademark applications during the past 18 months. Some of them were refused by the JPO due to a conflict with famous mark.
Below mark is also subject to opposition contested by Adidas AG.

By taking into account famousness of the Trefoil logo, visual resemblance between the marks, and free-riding on opponent reputation and goodwill, relevant consumers are likely to cause confusion with Adidas at the sight of apparels or shoes using opposed mark.

Opposition Board decision

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

In the meantime, the Board negated similarity and likelihood of confusion between the marks, stating that opposed mark never gives rise to a meaning and pronunciation of trefoil. From visual point of view, it is sufficiently distinguishable from the Trefoil logo. Fact that opposed mark happens to closely resemble a portion of the Trefoil logo is of little significance since Adidas Trefoil logo has acquired remarkable reputation in its entirety. If so, the Board feels it is unlikely that relevant consumers can perceive opposed mark as a cutout from the Trefoil logo.

Besides, even if it becomes suspicious whether applicant has a bona fide intention to use opposed mark, it is not objectionable under Article 4(1)(xv) since the Board finds both marks are dissimilar to the extent that there exists less likelihood of confusion.

Due to less likelihood of confusion between the marks, the Board is unable to foresee 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 not subject to Article 4(1)(vii) as well as (xv) and granted registration a status quo.

Disputed mark

Disputed mark was filed on March 2, 2011 by a Japanese business entity, designating shoes in class 25 and registered on August 5, 2011 (Registration no. 5430912).

To oppose the registration, on October 18, 2011, Adidas AG filed an opposition against disputed mark based on Article 43bis of the Trademark. But the Opposition Board of JPO overruled the opposition and decided to admit registration of disputed mark on June 27, 2012. Four years later, Adidas AG filed an invalidation appeal with an attempt to retroactively null disputed mark based on Article 4(1)(xv), 46(1)(i) of the Trademark Law.

The Japan Trademark Law provides where a trademark has been registered for five years or more, an invalidation appeal based on Article 4(1)(xv) shall be dismissed unless the trademark was aimed for registration with a fraudulent purpose.

It is imagined that the provision urged Adidas to take an invalidation action eventually since the appeal date is just one week before a lapse of five years from registration.

Invalidation trial

Adidas AG repeatedly argued a likelihood of confusion between Adidas’ famous 3-stripe design and disputed mark because of a high degree of popularity and reputation of 3-stripe design as a source indicator of Adidas sportswear and sports shoes, visual resemblance between the marks.

Board decision

The Board found that:

1. Adidas’ 3-stripe design has acquired a substantial degree of reputation well before the filing date of disputed mark as a result of continuous marketing activities in Japan since 1971.
2. Occasionally, Adidas promotes shoes depicting various types of 3-stripe design with a slight modification to length, width, angle, outline or color of the stripe.
3. Disputed mark gives rise to the same visual impression in the mind of consumers with 3-stripe design by taking account of similar graphical representation consisting of three lines in parallel leaning to the left. Difference in detail is negligible since it can be perceived as a variation of Adidas shoes given actual business circumstances.

Based on the above findings, the Board concluded that relevant consumers and traders are likely to confuse shoes using disputed mark with Adidas’ famous 3-stripe design or misconceive a source from any entity systematically or economically connected with Adidas AG. Thus, disputed mark shall be invalidated in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

Disputed mark

Disputed mark was filed on May 1, 2015 by a Japanese business entity, designating the goods of clothing for pets in class 18 and registered on October 16, 2015.

Subsequently after the registration, Adidas AG filed an opposition against disputed mark on November 26, 2015. Since it ended in vain, Adidas AG challenged inadequacy of the decision and registration by means of invalidation trial.

Invalidation trial

During the invalidation trial, Adidas AG argued a likelihood of confusion between Adidas’ famous 3-stripe design and disputed mark because of a high degree of popularity and reputation of 3-stripe design as a source indicator of Adidas sportswear and sports shoes, visual resemblance between the marks, and close relatedness of its consumers and commodity goods.

Board decision

The Board found that:

1. Adidas’ 3-stripe design has acquired a substantial degree of reputation well before the filing date of disputed mark as a result of continuous marketing activities in Japan since 1971.
2. Three bones device mark visually resembles with 3-stripe design by taking account of the same graphical representations allocating three trapezoids in different length in parallel to be seen it constituting a triangle in overall appearance.
3. It becomes apparent that distributors of sports gears, apparels, bags, and shoes also deal with clothing for pets nowadays.

Based on the above findings, the Board concluded that consumers who are accustomed to the circumstance, are likely to confuse clothing for pets using disputed mark with Adidas’ famous 3-stripe design or misconceive a source from any entity systematically or economically connected with Adidas AG. Thus, disputed mark shall be invalidated in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

It should be noteworthy that a decision to dismiss opposition is not appealable under the Japan Trademark Law. If opposed party wants to argue the decision, there is no way other than invalidation trial.