タグ: Article 4(1)(xi)

JPO Decision: KATSEYE is Dissimilar to CAT’S EYE for Watches

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Sowind S.A. against TM Reg no. 6876057 for word mark “KATSEYE” who claimed its cancellation based on earlier IR no. 1056129 for word mark “CAT’S EYE” by finding dissimilarity between the marks.
[Opposition case no. 2025-900048, decided on August 15, 2025]

KATSEYE

HYBE UMG LLC, American record company jointly founded by South Korean entertainment company, HYBE and Universal Music Group (UMG), filed a trademark application for word mark “KATSEYE” in standard character for use on various goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 41, and 42, including watches (cl. 14) with the JPO on May 15, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-51239].

https://www.universal-music.co.jp/katseye/

The JPO examiner granted registration of the mark on Decem 3, 2024, and published it for a post-grant opposition on December 23, 2024.

CAT’S EYE

Sowind S.A. filed an opposition on February 25, 2025 by citing earlier IR no. 1056129 for word mark “CAT’S EYE” in standard character for use on watches which do not contain chrysoberyl cat’s eyes in Class 14.

Sowind S.A. argued the contested mark should be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law on the ground that the contested mark “KATSEYE” is confusingly similar to the cited mark “CAT’S EYE” from visual, phonetic and conceptual points of view, and the goods designated under the contested mark in Class 14 is identical or similar to watches.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board assessed similarity of the marks and found that the contested mark is dissimilar to the cited mark by stating that:

The term “KATSEYE” does not appear in ordinary dictionaries and no circumstances have been identified indicating that it is recognized as having a specific meaning, it shall be perceived as a coined word that does not give rise to any particular concept.

With respect to coined words that lack a specific meaning, it is customary to be pronounced in accordance with commonly accepted English or Romanized readings. Accordingly, the contested mark, consistent with its composition, will be pronounced as “KATSU-AI” or “CATS-EYE” and has no specific meaning.

As the term “CAT’S EYE” bears the meaning of “chrysoberyl (cat’s eye),” the cited mark, in accordance with its composition, will be pronounced as “CATS-EYE” and gives rise to the concept of a “cat’s eye (gemstone).”

The contested mark and the cited mark, each consisting of no more than seven or eight letters, are clearly distinguishable in appearance by reason of the difference between the initial letter “K” and “C” and the presence or absence of an apostrophe (“’”) in the middle of the word.

When the contested mark is pronounced as “CATS-EYE”, both marks are identical in sound.

In comparing the sound “KATS-EYE” of the contested mark with the sound “CATS-EYE”, since both consist of only five syllables, the difference between the initial sounds “KA” and “KYA” exerts a non-negligible influence upon the overall pronunciation, whereby the two marks can be clearly distinguished in sound.

Further, while the contested mark does not give rise to any particular concept, the cited mark gives rise to the concept of a “cat’s eye (gemstone).” Accordingly, the two marks are not likely to be confused in concept.

In consequence, even if there is a case that the two marks can be identically pronounced, they are unlikely to be confused in appearance and concept. When the contested mark is pronounced as “KATSU-AI”, the two marks are sufficiently distinguishable in appearance, pronunciation, or concept. Therefore, taking into a global consideration commercial impression, memory, and association given to traders and consumers through their appearance, concept, and pronunciation, the contested mark and the cited mark are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to dismiss the entire opposition.

JPO dismisses Honda’s opposition against “WONKEY” mark for motorcycles

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Honda Motor Co., Ltd. against TM Reg No. 6852662 for the word mark “WONKEY” in Class 12, finding no similarity or likelihood of confusion with Honda’s well-known “MONKEY” bikes.
[Opposition Case No. 2024-900262, decided July 15, 2025]

The Contested Mark: “WONKEY”

The opposed mark, consisting of the stylized word “WONKEY” in bold font (see below), was filed by Diner Co., Ltd. on February 26, 2024, for use on motorcycles, electrically operated scooters, and electric bicycles in Class 12 [TM App. No. 2024-18623].

The applicant promotes “WONKEY” motorized bicycles that may be driven by persons over 16 years of age without a driver’s license.

https://wobikes.com/collections/wonkey

The JPO granted registration on October 9, 2024 [TM Reg. No. 6852662], and published it for post-grant opposition on October 18, 2024.

Honda’s Opposition

On December 17, 2024, Honda filed an opposition, seeking cancellation under Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Trademark Law, relying on its earlier Trademark Registration No. 2512844 for the stylized word mark “MONKEY” in Class 12.

Honda argued that “WONKEY” is visually similar to “MONKEY,” emphasizing that:

“Of the six letters, five (‘onkey’) are identical in type, spelling, and sequence. The only difference lies in the initial letters ‘w’ and ‘m,’ which themselves share similar forms composed of two v-shaped or u-shaped strokes. At first glance, the two letters appear alike, and thus the marks as a whole create a closely similar impression, rendering them confusingly similar in appearance.”

To support its case, Honda submitted extensive evidence demonstrating the fame of its “Monkey” bikes, which have been marketed since 1961.

https://www.honda.co.jp/Monkey125/

The JPO’s Decision

The Opposition Board acknowledged the widespread recognition of Honda’s “Monkey” bikes among relevant consumers at the time of application and registration of the contested mark.

Nevertheless, the Board denied similarity between the marks. In particular, it reasoned that:

  • The contested mark “WONKEY” does not generate any specific concept.
  • The cited mark “MONKEY,” by contrast, is a well-known word in Japan with the meaning “monkey,” giving rise to both the pronunciation “monkey” and the concept of “monkey.”
  • While the two marks share all letters and sounds except for their initial characters (“w” vs. “m”; “wo” vs. “mo”), both are short (six letters and four sounds). Accordingly, the initial differences exert a significant impact on the overall appearance and pronunciation.
  • Coupled with the concept of “monkey” derived from the cited mark, these differences lead to a clear distinction in the overall impressions, memories, and associations conveyed to consumers.

The Board concluded that, given the low degree of similarity, relevant consumers were unlikely to confuse the source of the contested goods in Class 12 with Honda or any economically or organizationally related entity.

Based on the above findings, the JPO dismissed the opposition in its entirety and upheld the validity of the contested mark “WONKEY.”

JPO found STINGER dissimilar to Stingers for clothing and sports event

Posted on

In an administrative appeal, the Appeal Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s rejection, finding that the terms “STINGER” and “Stingers” were not considered confusingly similar.
[Appeal case no. 2025-000046, decided on August 5, 2025]

STINGER GC by LIV Golf

LIV Golf, a professional golf league founded in 2021, filed trademark application for the mark “STINGER GC” (see below) for use on clothing in Class 25 and golf tournaments in Cass 41 with the JPO on June 22, 2023 [TM Application no. 2023-69454].

The term “GC” is depicted in a noticeably smaller font size compared to “STINGER,” and therefore the element “STINGER” is perceived as the dominant portion of the mark.

https://shop.livgolf.com/collections/stinger-gc

Cited mark “Stingers”

On October 1, 2024, the JPO examiner rejected the mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registration no. 6632507 for the stylized mark “Stingers” with device (see below).

The cited mark “Stingers” is used as the name of a professional badminton team managed by the cited owner.

https://www.jtekt.co.jp/sports/badminton/

On January 6, 2025, LIV Golf filed an appeal against the rejection with the JPO and disputed dissimilarity of the two marks.

JPO decision

A comparison of the applied-for mark and the cited mark shows differences in the presence of the letters “GC” in the former and the presence of a device element in the latter. When considered in their overall compositions, these differences result in a distinct visual impression, such that the two marks are dissimilar in appearance.

Further, when comparing the word element “STINGER” of the applied-for mark with the word element “Stingers” of the cited mark, several distinctions can be identified. These include the presence or absence of the terminal letter “s,” the use of all uppercase letters as opposed to a mixture of uppercase and lowercase letters, differences in typeface, and the manner of presentation—whether written in a straight horizontal line or with a slight upward inclination. Taken together, these variations further reduce the likelihood of visual confusion between the two marks.

In terms of pronunciation, the difference arising from the presence or absence of the final syllable “zu” is significant in light of the relatively short phonetic structures of the marks (five and six syllables, respectively). As a result, the two marks are unlikely to be confused phonetically.

From a conceptual standpoint, the applied-for mark conveys the idea of “something that stings,” whereas the cited mark conveys the idea of “things that sting.” The only distinction lies in the singular versus plural form of the word. Accordingly, the two marks may be considered to share a similar conceptual impression.

In summary, while the applied-for mark and the cited mark may be regarded as conceptually similar, they differ significantly in appearance and pronunciation. Taking into account the overall impressions, memories, and associations that the marks would create among relevant traders and consumers, the two marks can be regarded as dissimilar in their entirety.

JPO Found “TRITON” dissimilar to “Toriton, Inc.”

Posted on

In an administrative appeal, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) disaffirmed the examiner’s rejection to TM App no. 2024-90390 for wordmark “Toriton, Inc.” by negating similarity to earlier mark “TRITON.”
[Appeal case no. 2025-6661, decided on July 15, 2025]

Toriton, Inc.

On August 21, 2024, Toriton, Inc. filed a trademark application with the JPO for the word mark “Toriton, Inc.” in bold font with a shadow effect (see below) that designates computer software design, computer programming, or maintenance of computer software; providing computer programs on data networks and other services in Class 42 [TM App no. 2024-90390].

TRITON

The JPO examiner gave a notice of grounds for refusal based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing TM Reg no. 3221980 for stylized word mark “TORITON” (see below). The examiner considered the marks are confusingly similar and both designate the same or similar services in Class 42.

The applicant filed a response and argued dissimilarity of the marks. However, the examiner did not change his stance and decided to reject the mark on February 5, 2025.

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

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board observed that “Toriton, Inc.” and “TRITON” are dissimilar by stating that:

  1. From appearance, obvious are differences in the number and composition of the characters that consist of respective marks. When comparing the dominant element of the applied mark, “Toriton,” and the cited mark, “TRITON”, the differences in upper and lower case letters, as well as the presence or absence of the letter “o” after the first letter “T”, distinguish them.
  2. Aural comparison reveals that the overall pronunciations are distinguishable due to differences in the number of sounds and sound composition. However, the sound derived from the dominant element “Toriton” is identical to the cited mark. In this respect, both marks have a sound in common.
  3. Conceptually, the applied mark can evoke the meaning “a company named Toriton” as a whole, or no specific meaning from the dominant element. In contrast, the cited mark does not evoke any specific concept. Therefore, a conceptual comparison is neutral.
  4. Based on the foregoing, even though both marks share one sound, the Board believes there is no likelihood of confusion due to the clear distinction in appearance and concept. Taking into account the impressions, memories, and associations conceived by relevant traders and consumers, it is unlikely that the applied mark will cause confusion with the cited mark when used in connection with the services in question.
  5. Accordingly, the examiner’s findings are inaccurate, and the decision should be overturned.

UNDER ARMOUR Unsuccessful Challenge in Trademark Opposition against AROUMRIN

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the opposition filed by Under Armour, Inc. against TM Reg no. 6839569 for the stylized mark “ARMOURIN” in Classes 25 and 28 due to dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with earlier registrations for the mark “UNDER ARMOUR”.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900229, decided on July 2, 2025]

ARMOURIN

The contested mark (see below) was filed by AMH LO INC., a U.S. company, in connection with apparel and footwear, including golf shoes, in Class 25; and sporting articles, inter alia golf clubs, golf equipment, in Class 28, with the JPO on December 26, 2023 [TM App no. 2023-143646].

The JPO examiner, as a result of substantive examination, granted protection of the mark on August 6, 2024 without issuing an office action.

https://armourin.com/

After registration, the mark was published in the gazette for a post-grant opposition on September 9, 2024.

Opposition by Under Armour

Under Armour, Inc., a U.S. sports apparel company, filed an opposition against the mark “ARMOURIN” with the JPO on November 8, 2024, and claimed cancellation based on Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law due to the similarity to and likelihood of confusion with their earlier registrations for the word mark “UNDER ARMOUR”.

Under Armour argued the contested mark contains the term “ARMOUR” that has become famous among relevant consumers of the goods in question and played a prominent role in identifying a commercial source of the goods bearing the cited mark. Therefore, the contested mark should be considered similar to the cited mark “UNDER ARMOUR” and likely to cause confusion with the opposer’s business when used on the goods in question.

The JPO decision

Article 4(1)(xi) – Similarity of mark

The JPO Opposition Board found that the contested mark does not give rise to any specific meaning as a whole.

Regarding the cited mark “UNDER ARMOUR”, the Board observed that there is reason to dissect the term “UNDER” and “ARMOUR” into individual parts from visual and conceptual points of view.

Global assessment suggests there is no similarity in appearance and sound. Besides, a conceptual comparison is neutral as neither the contested mark nor the cited mark has a clear meaning. Therefore, the marks are dissimilar, even if the goods in question are the same as those cited, by taking account of the overall impression, memory, and association created in the minds of relevant consumers.

Article 4(1)(xv) – Likelihood of confusion

The Board negated a famousness of the cited mark “UNDER ARMOUR” because the opposer failed to provide sufficient objective evidence of actual sales amount and advertising in Japan.

Bearing in mind that the contested mark has a low degree of similarity to the cited mark, there is no reason to believe that relevant consumers will confuse the source of the goods in question bearing the contested mark with Under Armour, the Board noted.

In the light of the foregoing, the Board dismissed the opposition and declared the contested mark valid as status quo.

MEN IMPOSSIBLE is not IMPOSSIBLE

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the opposition filed by Impossible Foods Inc. against TM Reg no. 6856327 for the “men impossible” mark due to dissimilarity to earlier mark “IMPOSSIBLE”.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900260, decided on June 17, 2025]

Men impossible

The contested mark consists of the word “men impossible” and a device representing cooked noodles in a bowl with chopsticks (see below). A Japanese individual filed it with the JPO for use in relation to restaurant services in Class 43 on March 5, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-22440].

“MEN” means ‘noodles’ in Japanese.

The JPO granted registration of the mark on October 11, 2024, and published it for post-grant opposition on October 29, 2024.

Opposition by Impossible Foods

Before the lapse of a two-month statutory period counting from the publication date, Impossible Foods Inc., a U.S. corporation that develops plant-based substitutes for meat, dairy, and fish products, filed an opposition with the JPO on December 16, 2024.

Impossible Foods Inc. argued that the contested mark should be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law due to a close resemblance to its earlier TM Reg no. 6646654 for the word mark “IMPOSSIBLE” in standard character, which designates restaurant services in Class 43.

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 Opposition Board found the contested mark “men impossible” is dissimilar to the cited mark “IMPOSSIBLE” by stating that:

Visually, the contested mark and the cited mark differ by virtue of the presence or absence of figurative elements and the word “men,” and therefore relevant consumers are clearly capable of distinguishing two marks in appearance.

Aurally, the sound of “Men Impossible” arising from the contested mark and the sound “Impossible” from the cited mark differ in the presence or absence of the prefix sound “men,” so they are clearly distinguishable in terms of pronunciation.

Conceptually, the contested mark does not give rise to any specific meaning. In the meantime, the cited mark has a meaning of ‘not possible’. There is no risk of confusion in concept.

Therefore, the contested mark and the cited mark are obviously distinguishable in appearance and sound, and there is no risk of confusion in concept.

When considering the overall impression, memory, and associations evoked in the mind of relevant traders and consumers by means of the appearance, pronunciation, and concept of two marks, the Board has a reason to believe that the contested mark is dissimilar to and unlikely to cause confusion with the cited mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided that the contested mark is not subject to cancellation based on Article 4(1)(xi) even if the designated service of both marks are identical or similar.

META vs META READY

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s rejection of TM App no. 2022-6896 for the mark “META READY” with a device due to an error in identifying the dominant portion of the applied mark and its dissimilarity to IR no. 1281398 “META” owned by Meta Platforms, Inc.
[Appeal case no. 2024-19649, decided on June 10, 2025]

META/READY

Micro-Star INT’L CO., LTD., a Taiwanese company, filed a trademark application for the mark “META READY” with device (see below) for use on computers, computer software, computer servers and other computer-related goods in class 9 with the JPO on Jan 24, 2022 [TM App no. 2022-6896].

https://www.instagram.com/p/Ce5vp9IPDaH/

JPO examiner’s rejection

On September 10, 2024, the JPO examiner rejected the applied mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing IR no. 1281398 for the wordmark “META” in standard character owned by Meta Platforms, Inc.

In the refusal decision, the examiner stated that the literal element “META” is dominant in the applied mark. If so, the mark is confusingly similar to IR no. 1281398. Besides, the goods designated under the applied mark is identical or similar to the following goods of the cited mark in class 9.

Digital glasses that display augmented content that contain depth-sensing cameras used for creating digital content; software for displaying augmented content and  for creating digital content sold as an integral component of digital glasses; kits comprised of digital glasses that display augmented content that contain depth-sensing cameras used for creating digital content, software for displaying augmented content and for creating digital content sold as an integral component of digital glasses, external computer hard drives, USB cables and power cables.

The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on December 6, 2024 and argued dissimilarity of two marks.

Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board found that the applied mark should be considered globally, stating the following:

The applied mark consists of the word “META” in a bold font between two gray geometric figures with 3×6 grids, with the word “READY” written slightly smaller below.

Considering that respective words are balanced in the center, the applied mark gives the impression of visual integration as a whole. In addition, the sound derived from all the literal elements can be pronounced smoothly. Furthermore, neither “META” nor “READY” directly indicates the quality of the goods in question.

Given the cohesive composition, it is reasonable to hold that the applied mark can be understood as a coined word. Is difficult to find that any of its elements would give a strong and dominant impression as an identifier of a specific source of goods, or be omitted due to a lack of distinctiveness.

Taking the above into account, the Board believes that relevant traders and consumers are likely to recognize and perceive the applied mark as a whole, rather than dissecting its literal elements and focusing solely on the word “META” in actual commerce.

Based on the foregoing, the Board pointed out that the examiner erred in assessing the applied mark and concluded that the applied mark is dissimilar to the cited mark “META” from visual, aural and conceptual points of view.

TORNADO vs TORQNADO

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by GEMBALLA LIMITED against TM Reg no. 6849477 for the word mark “TORQNADO” for use on cars and motorcycles in class 12 due to dissimilarity to IR no. 1100655 for the word mark “TORNADO” that designates automobiles in class 12.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900257, decided on May 27, 2025]

TORQNADO

Suzuki Motor Corporation, a major Japanese automotive company, filed a trademark application for the word mark “TORQNADO” in standard character for use on cars and motorcycles in class 12 with the JPO on January 18, 2024. [TM App no. 2024-4189]

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action in the course of substantive examination and then granted registration of the mark on September 3, 2024.

Subsequently after registration [TM Reg no. 6849477], the mark was published for a post-grant opposition on October 9, 2024.

Opposition by GEMBALLA

Just before the lapse of two-month statutory opposition period, GEMBALLA LIMITED, a German car manufacturer with renowned experience in refining of Posche and McLaren sports cars, filed an opposition with the JPO on November 9, 2024.

In the opposition brief, GEMBALLA claimed cancellation of TM Reg no. 6849477 based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law because of similarity to their IR no. 1100655 for the word mark “TORNADO” that designates “Automobiles and parts thereof, particularly tuned automobiles and parts thereof; accessories for the aforementioned goods as far as included in this class; all aforementioned goods excluding tires” in class 12.

GEMBALLA argued the opposed mark “TORQNADO” is confusingly similar to the cited mark “TORNADO” in appearance and sound. Besides, all goods designated by the opposed mark are deemed similar.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board did not side with GEMBALLA and found both marks dissimilar by stating that:

Visual Comparison:

The presence or absence of the letter “Q” in the middle makes the respective marks distinguishable enough to reduce the likelihood of confusion.

Aural comparison:

The sounds of “TORQNADO” and “TORNADO” differ clearly in the presence or absence of the “ku” sound from the letter “Q.” This difference significantly impacts the overall pronunciation. It gives rise to a different tone and feeling of the sounds, thus making the two marks phonetically distinguishable.

Conceptual comparison:

The opposed mark does not have a specific meaning. Meanwhile, the cited mark has the meaning of “an extremely strong wind that blows in a circle.”  Therefore, both marks are unlikely to cause conceptual confusion.

Given both marks are dissimilar, the opposed mark should not be canceled based on Article 4(1)(xi) even if the goods in question are identical or similar.

JPO found BYOMA and BIYŌMA dissimilar marks

Posted on

In an invalidation action disputing the validity of TM Reg no. 6637032 for the word mark “BIYŌMA” in class 3 due to its similarity to the earlier IR no. 1633315 for the word mark “BYOMA”, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) found BYOMA and BIYŌMA to be dissimilar.
[Invalidation case no. 2023-890015, gazette issued on May 30, 2025]

TM Reg no. 6637032

The contested mark, consisting of the word “BIYŌMA” in a plain font (see below), was filed with the JPO for use on cosmetics of class 3 in particular and various goods in classes 21, 24, 25 and 30 on March 17, 2022, by TSUKAMONO CORPORATION. [TM App no. 2022-30868]

The JPO examiner notified a refusal ground that states the mark is unregistrable due to a conflict with IR no. 1633315 for word mark “BYOMA” based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law. The applicant filed a response in which they argued dissimilarity of mark.

Eventually, the examiner withdrew his refusal and granted protection of the mark on September 30, 2022.

The applicant promotes body cream, body soap, hand cream, and lip stick displaying the mark “BIYŌMA”.

https://biyoma.jp/

Invalidation action by BYOMA Limited

BYOMA Limited, the owner of IR no. 1633315 “BYOMA”, filed an application for a declaration of partial invalidation to the contested mark on March 14, 2023 with the JPO in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law, and disputed similarity between “BYOMA” and “BIYŌMA” in relation to cosmetics of class 3.

BYOMA Limited argued that the contested mark resembles the cited mark because it contains all of the letters that constitute the cited mark, and the difference in the second letter, “I,” is trivial. A conceptual comparison is neutral as both marks have any clear meaning. Besides, taking account of aural similarity, the contested mark should be considered similar to the cited mark.

JPO decision

On October 2, 2024, the JPO Invalidation Board dismissed the invalidation petition by stating that:

Visual Comparison

Although the contested mark and the cited mark contain the same letters “B,” “Y,” “O,” “M,” and “A”, there are differences in the presence or absence of the letter “I” in the second character and the hyphen in the letter “O.” These differences have a significant impact on the overall visual impression of the contested mark. Especially, when comparing the relatively short constituent characters of six and five letters. Therefore, both marks are clearly distinguishable in appearance.

Aural Comparison

There is a difference between “biyo” and “byo” in the initial sound, which is an important element in distinguishing the pronunciation. In the comparison of the short constituent sounds of four or three syllables, these differences affect the overall pronunciation of the two marks. Even when pronounced consecutively, the tone and feeling of the pronunciations differ to the extent relevant consumers can easily distinguish them phonetically.

Conceptual Comparison

The conceptual aspect does not have impact on the assessment of similarity, since both marks are meaningless.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided that the contested mark is dissimilar to and unlikely to cause confusion with the cited mark even when used on the goods in question.

JPO found “ARIS” dissimilar to “arivis” in trademark opposition

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition claimed by Carl Zeiss Microscopy GmbH against TM Reg no. 6846031 for word mark “AIRIS” due to dissimilarity to earlier IR no. 1566263 for word mark “arivis”.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900248, decided on May 13, 2025]

AIRIS

Appier Private Limited, a Singapore company, filed a trademark application for word mark “AIRIS” in connection with SaaS, computer programming and other computer software-related services in class 42 with the JPO on February 6, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-11487].

The JPO examiner granted protection of the applied mark and published it for a post-grant opposition on September 30, 2024 after registration [TM Reg no. 6846031].

Opposition by Carl Zeiss

On November 29, 2024, Carl Zeiss Microscopy GmbH, an owner of IR no. 1566263 for word mark “arivis” in standard that designates computer software-related goods and services in classes 9, 42, and 45, filed an opposition with the JPO and claimed cancellation of the mark “AIRIS” in contravention of 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 Opposition Board assessed similarity between “AIRIS” and “arivis” from visual, aural and conceptual points of view.

  • Visual similarity

Even if the alphabets that constitute the contested mark are included in the cited mark, the terms “AIRIS” and ‘arivis’ differ in the order and the number of the letters, and the presence or absence of the letter “v”. These differences have a significant impact on the overall visual impression of two marks, given both have relatively short character structures. Therefore, the marks are visually distinguishable.

  • Aural similarity

A comparison of the pronunciation of “AIRIS” and “arivis” reveals clear distinctions in the second and third sounds. Despite the presence of the vowel sound (i) in both sounds, the distinction between the second and third sounds has a substantial impact on the overall tone and feel. Consequently, when pronounced as a whole, there is no risk of confusion between the sounds, ensuring their clear distinction.

  • Conceptual similarity

A conceptual comparison is neutral because neither “AIRIS” nor “arivis” has any clear meaning.

Based on the foregoing, the Opposition Board noted:

Even if the contested mark and the cited mark cannot be compared in concept, there is no likelihood of confusion in appearance and sound. Therefore, taking into consideration the overall impression, memory, and associations given to traders and consumers by means of the appearance, pronunciation, and concept of both marks, the Board found a reason to believe that two marks are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion when used on the services in question.

Consequently, the JPO decided to dismiss the opposition and declared validity of the contested mark as the status quo.