タグ: Article 4(1)(xix)

End of the TOKYO 2020 Olympic emblem dispute

Posted on

On March 12, 2025, the Japan IP High Court handed down a decision regarding the validity of TM Reg no. 6008759 for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Emblem owned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
[Court case no. Reiwa6(Gyo-ke)10057]

Tokyo 2020 Olympic Emblem

The official emblem of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics was scrapped in 2016 (see below left) and replaced with the new emblem (see below right) before the opening of the Olympics, as you recall.

Even after the Games closed without spectators in 2021, a year after originally scheduled to due to a global pandemic, the new official emblem was to face with another challenge at the Japan Patent Office (JPO) in 2022.

The contested new emblem was filed by the IOC for use on all goods and services in every class from 1 to 45 with the JPO on April 25, 2016. In the course of substantive examination, the mark was assigned to the Tokyo Olympic Committee (TOC). Subsequently, the JPO granted registration on December 7, 2017 (TM Reg no. 6008759). Upon the Olympic Games finalizing, it was re-assigned to the IOC in December 2021.

Invalidation action

A group of Japanese legal experts filed an application for a declaration of invalidity against the new Tokyo 2020 Olympic Emblem with the JPO on June 21, 2022. They claimed that the emblem should be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(vi), (vii), (x) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

The experts argued, inter alia, that the IOC failed to comply with Article 31(1) of the Trademark Law, which prohibits the licensing of a trademark registration to a third party given the mark was registered subject to Article 4(2).

Article 4(2) provides an exception to allow the registration of a trademark applied for by a non-profit organization engaged in activities in the public interest, even if the trademark is unregistrable under Article 4(1)(vi).

In this respect, the experts considered it illegal that the IOC granted a trademark license to the TOC, other organizers and sponsors. In fact, under the license, the TOC sent C&D letters based on TM Reg no. 6008759 to entities seeking to benefit from the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games in order to prevent ambush marketing.

In these circumstances, the contested mark should be declared invalid in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii) because the IOC had a bad faith intent to unjustifiably protect the profits of official sponsors without legal basis by harming the interests of other entities.

It should be noted that Article 31(1) was revised in 2019, one year after the registration of the contested mark. Now, the prohibition to license the registered mark under Article 4(2) no longer exists.

IP High Court decision

In its ruling, the IP High Court acknowledged the need to restrict ambush marketing, which deliberately attempts to persuade or mislead consumers into believing they are associated with a sporting mega-event, or to use their IP without permission.

The Court found that since the elimination of the restriction on granting a license for a mark registered under Article 4(2) came into effect immediately after the promulgation of the Trademark Law Revision in 2019, it would rather serve to promote the appropriate use of the famous trademark for the public interest and satisfy the intention behind the law.

Therefore, even if the IOC had licensed the contested mark to the TOC and official sponsors in order to prevent ambush marketing, it would be irrelevant to find that the contested mark should be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii) due to the likelihood of causing damage to public order or morality.

Trademark Squatter Seeking to Ruin Luxury Brand with Obscene Language

Posted on

In May 2022, the Japan IP High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, OMEGA S.A. The case concerns cancellation of TM Reg no. 6277280 for the word mark “OMECO” in Class 14 (watches) owned by a Japanese company, OMECO Co., Ltd.

In the complaint, OMEGA S.A. argued that the contested mark is likely to cause confusion with world-famous brand “OMEGA” when used on watches. The court declared cancellation of the contested mark, however, not because of the LOC, but the likelihood of damage to public order or morality based on Article 4(1)(vii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Do you think OMEGA S.A. is satisfied with the court’s decision?

As a matter of fact, the company continues to sell wristwatches bearing the mark “OMECO” even now.

https://omeco.buyshop.jp/

If the court ruled the case by finding a likelihood of confusion with OMEGA based on Article 4(1)(xv), the goods must be prohibited from selling because of trademark infringement or unfair competition. Ironically, the court decision encourages the company to promote watches bearing a vulgar, obscene, prurient and immoral mark by slightly changing famous luxury brands as shown below. The names have a vulgar, obscene and prurient meaning in Japanese.

https://omeco.buyshop.jp/

Not only the actual use, but the company is seeking trademark registration of these vulgar, obscene, lewd and immoral marks in Japan, which obviously intends to free-ride on famous luxury brands such as Cartier, PATEK PHILIPPE, HUBLOT, A. LANGE & SOHNE, RICHARD MILLE, BOTTEGA VENETA, ROLEX.

Recently, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) examiner issued an office action based on Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Trademark Law due to similarity to and likelihood of confusion with famous luxury brands.

It is anticipated that the company files a response to the office action and argue dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion by referring to the court decision since the rejection would affect their business.

UNIQLO Lost in Trademark Opposition against UNIPRO

Posted on

UNIQLO lost in its attempt to oppose TM Reg no. 6746724 for the mark “UNIPRO” in class 28 due to dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion with a world-famous Japanese clothing brand “UNIQLO”.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900278, Gazette issued on December 27, 2024]

UNIPRO

Kabushiki Kaisha UNIQUE, a Japanese corporation, filed a trademark application for the mark “UNIPRO” in relation to pet toys and sports equipment in class 28 with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on April 17, 2023 [TM App no. 2023-41531]. The mark has the word “UNIPRO” written in two lines inside a square (see below).

On October 10, 2023, the JPO examiner approved the registration of the applied mark without issuing an office action. Subsequently, the JPO published the mark for a post-grant opposition on October 27, 2023.

Opposition by UNIQLO

Fast Retailing Co., Ltd., a public Japanese retail holding company, is best known for its flagship brand UNIQLO. The company filed an opposition with the JPO on December 8, 2023 by citing its own earlier trademark registrations for the UNIQLO mark.

Fast Retailing claimed that the applied mark should be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law because of a high degree of similarity to and a likelihood of confusion with famous fashion brand UNIQLO when used on the goods in question.

Fast Retailing argued, among other things, visual and aural similarity between UNIPRO and UNIQLO. Arranging the first three letters “UNI” in the top line and the last three letters in the bottom line in a square would be anything but a coincidence. Since the mark “UNIQLO” is a coined word and has become famous to indicate Japanese clothing brand operated by Fast Retailing Group, the applicant must have intended to free-ride on the goodwill bestowed on UNIQLO and unjustifiably obtain profits by using the applied mark “UNIPRO” that is confusingly similar to the cited mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that the cited mark and “UNIQLO” have been widely recognized among relevant consumers in Japan to indicate a source of clothing managed by Fast Retailing Group.

In the meantime, the Board held “UNIPRO” is dissimilar to and unlikely to cause confusion with “UNIQLO” by stating:

  1. The applied mark and the cited mark both consist of white letters and a square. They also share the letters “UNI” in the top line and “O” in the bottom line. However, the difference of the letters “PR” and “QL” in the bottom line gives an impression that the marks represent different word in a square. Therefore, the applied mark is distinguishable from the cited mark in appearance.
  2. Comparing the sound of the applied mark with that of the cited mark, there is a difference in the third tone of “pu” and “ku”. This difference has anything but negligible effect on the overall tone and impression since respective sound has a short four-syllable structure. Thus, the Board finds it reasonable to conclude that there is no risk of mishearing each other.
  3. Conceptual aspect does not have impact on the assessment of likelihood of confusion, since both marks are meaningless.

Taking into consideration a low degree of similarity between the marks, even if the cited mark has become famous among relevant consumers, the Board has no reason to believe the consumers would consider an origin of the goods in question bearing the applied mark from UNIQLO or an undertaking economically or systematically linked to Fast Retailing.

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

Trademark Parody case : Champion vs Nyanpion

Posted on

On Novem 20, 2024, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) handed a win to HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC in trademark invalidation action against TM Reg no. 6368388 for the mark “Nyanpion” with a cat face logo due to similarity to the famous apparel brand “Champion.”
[Invalidation case no. 2022-890045]

Contested mark

A Japanese individual applied a composite mark consisting of a stylized word “Nyanpion” and a cat face logo (see below) for use on apparel, headgear, footwear, sports shoes, and sportswear in class 25 with the JPO on August 25, 2020. “Nyan” is the sound cats make in Japan. Because of it, “Nyanpion” easily reminds us of a combination of cat sounds and “Champion”.

T-shirts, sweats, hoodies, and tote bags bearing the Nyanpion mark have been promoted for sale with a catchword of “Champion” parody.

As the JPO published the Nyanpion mark for a post-grant opposition on April 13, 2021, HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on June 14 of that year. However, the JPO Opposition Board dismissed the entire opposition by finding dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with famous “Champion” mark on March 16, 2022. [Opposition case no. 2021-900230]

Invalidation action by Champion

On June 17, 2022, HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC filed an invalidation action against the Nyanpion mark with the JPO.

HBI repeatedly argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of the Champion brand in relation to apparels and a high degree of similarity between the contested mark and its owned trademark registrations (see below) to the extent that relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods in question bearing the contested mark with “Champion”.

JPO Decision

The JPO Invalidation Board acknowledged that the “Champion” mark has acquired a high degree of reputation as a result of substantial use in Japan for more than four decades and has become remarkably famous as a source indicator of the opponent.

In assessing similarity, the Board found that:

The design portion of two marks have in common that the inside of the horizontal oval, which is drawn with a thick blue line and has an opening, is divided vertically into three parts, the middle colored in blue, the side with the opening colored in white and the side without the opening colored in red.

Differences in the presence of a face motif and two triangles placed at the top of the horizontal oval, in the direction of the opening of the horizontal oval and in the position of the red color within the horizontal oval would be less impressive given the resemblance in the overall configuration and the high degree of reputation and popularity of the cited marks.

Besides, the Board found no evidence to suggest that relevant consumers would consider the literal element “Nyanpion” to be a relatively as a prominent part of the contested mark. If so, the contested mark is confusingly similar to the cited mark as a whole, even if the cited mark does not contain the term “Nyanpion.”

Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that both marks have a distinctive sound, taking into account the visual and conceptual similarities, as well as the notable reputation of the cited mark, the Board has reason to believe that the contested mark, when used on the goods in question, will cause confusion with the cited mark


Based on the foregoing, the JPO declared invalidation of the contested mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv).

Audemars Piguet Unsuccessful in Opposition to Trademark “ROYAL OAK”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Audemars Piguet Holding SA (AP), a Swiss luxury watchmaker, against TM Reg no. 6754358 for wordmark “ROYAL OAK” in class 33 due to insufficient recognition of “ROYAL OAK” luxury watches among general consumers.
[Opposition case no. 2024-900016, decided on October 16, 2024]

Opposed mark

On May 12, 2023, St. Michael Wine and Spirits Co., Ltd. filed an application for the registration of a word mark “ROYAL OAK” in standard character, in connection with whisky, spirits [beverages], liqueurs, and western liquors (class 33) with the JPO.

The applicant sells whisky and soda in cans bearing the mark “ROYAL OAK”.

The JPO did not raise any office action in the course of substantive examination and published it for a post-grant opposition on November 24, 2023.

Opposition by Audemars Piguet

On January 23, 2024, before the lapse of a two-month statutory period counting from the publication date, AP filed an opposition and claimed cancellation of the applied mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

AP argued that “ROYAL OAK” has been well known for AP’s luxury watches even among relevant consumers of the goods in question. Allegedly, “ROYAL OAK” luxury watches have been promoted for sale in Japan since 1972. Annual sales exceed JPY 8 billion on average in the past six years. Each year, AP spent more than JPY400 million on advertisement and promotion in Japan. Due to the high degree of reputation and popularity of “ROYAL OAK” luxury watches, consumers are likely to consider whiskey and western spirits bearing the “ROYAL OAK” mark as coming from the opponent or other business entity economically or systematically connected with AP.

JPO decision

The Opposition Board admitted a certain degree of recognition of the opponent’s “ROYAL OAK” among the consumers who have purchased or interest in luxury watches. However, the Board questioned a high degree of recognition among general consumers because the opponent’s watches are priced at a premium, with relatively low sales volumes and a limited distribution network in Japan. There are about 50 stores only that engage in the resale of the “ROYAL OAK” watches in Japan in addition to the AP official salon or shop. Presumably, lots of general consumers have seldom visited these stores and seen the “ROYAL OAK” watches.

Besides, the Board found whisky, spirits [beverages], liqueurs, and western liquors do not closely relate to luxury watches.

Given that the AP’s “ROYAL OAK” has not acquired a high degree of recognition among relevant consumers and a low degree of relatedness between the goods, the Board has no reason to find a likelihood of confusion between the opposed mark and the opponent business even if both marks are same.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded AP’s allegations groundless and decided to maintain the registration of the opposed mark.

BULLDOG vs GREEN BULLLDOG

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition against TM Reg no. 6724674 for the wordmark “GREEN BULLDOG” claimed by DAVIDE CAMPARI – MILANO N.V. on the grounds of dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with earlier IR no. 1141768 for the wordmark “BULLDOG” for use on gin in Class 33.
[Opposition No. 2023-900229, decided on October 1, 2024]

GREEN BULLDOG

On April 15, 2022, Green Wave Unlimited Japan Co., Ltd (GWUJ) filed a trademark application with the JPO for the word mark “GREEN BULLDOG” and its Japanese transliteration arranged in two lines in connection with various goods in Classes 3, 5, and 33, including gin (Cl. 33) [TM App No. 2022-44073].

The applicant sells CBD products bearing the contested mark.

https://www.greenbulldog.jp/

The JPO examiner granted protection of the contested mark on June 2, 2023.

BULLDOG

DAVIDE CAMPARI – MILANO N.V. filed a partial opposition to the contested mark in respect of Western spirits, alcoholic fruit beverages, Japanese shochu-based beverages in Class 33 within the two-month statutory period from the date of publication on August 17, 2023, claiming that “GREEN BULLDOG” should be partially cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(x), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing its own earlier IR no. 1141768 for the word mark “BULLDOG” in Class 33.

CAMPARI argued that since “BULLDOG” gin has achieved a high degree of recognition among relevant consumers and traders in Japan and abroad, the literal part of “BULLDOG” plays a dominant role in identifying the source of the contested mark when used in relation to the goods in question. If so, both marks should be considered similar and consumers are likely to confuse a source of alcoholic beverages bearing the contested mark with CAMPARI or “BULLDOG” gin.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board did not allow a certain degree of recognition of the cited mark due to insufficient evidence provided by CAMPARI.

With respect to the similarity of the mark, the Opposition Board found that both marks are clearly distinguishable from appearance because the contested mark consists of alphabets and Japanese katakana characters arranged in two lines. On the other hands, the cited mark does not contain Japanese katakana characters and is not arranged in two lines.

Aurally, “BULLDOG” and “GREEN BULLDOG” are distinguishable because of a clear difference in the prefix sound.

A conceptual comparison is noteworthy as each mark evokes a different meaning.

Based on the above findings, the Board found that the two marks were dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion when used for the goods in question.

Consequently, the Board decided to reject the opposition in its entirety and to maintain the contested mark as the status quo.

Guerlain Unsuccessful Opposition to “MITSOUKO” mark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Guerlain, a legendary French perfume house, against TM Reg no. 6734165 for wordmark “mitsouko” in class 44 due to unlikelihood of confusion with perfume “MITSOUKO” by Guerlain.
[Opposition case no. 2023-90025, decided on June 27, 2024]

“mitsouko”

Yugen Kaisha AMERICA, a Japanese business entity, filed a trademark application for wordmark “mitsouko” in standard character for use on “beauty salon services, barbershops, massage, dietary and nutritional guidance, therapy services, rental of apparatus and instruments for use in beauty salons or barbers’ shops, providing medical information, manicuring, hair implantation” in class 44 with the JPO on March 22, 2023 (TM App no. 2023-30416).

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action to the mark and granted protection on September 5, 2023. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on September 15, 2023.

Opposition by Guerlain

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Guerlain, a legendary French perfume house, filed an opposition against the opposed mark on November 13, 2023.

Guerlain argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits the registration of trademarks that are likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.

Guerlain contended that given the remarkable reputation and popularity of the perfume “MITSOUKO” by Guerlain and close association between perfume and the services in question, relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of services bearing the opposed mark with Guerlain.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that, considering the evidence submitted, the mark “MITSOUKO” may be recognized by persons having a deep knowledge of perfume, but there is a reasonable doubt whether the mark is widely known among relevant consumers to indicate the source of Guerlain perfume.

In addition, in view of the low degree of relatedness between beauty salon services, barbershops, massage, etc. and “perfume”, even if both marks are almost identical, it is unlikely that traders and consumers at the sight of the opposed mark used in relation to the service in question will associate or recall the cited mark, and consider a source of the services from an entity economically or systematically connected with Guerlain.

Therefore, the Board has no reason to believe the opposed mark shall be subject to Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

Even if the applicant has applied for the opposed mark with knowledge of Guerlain’s perfume “MITSOUKO”, the fact is insufficient to infer that the company has the purpose of making unfair profits or the purpose of causing harm to others. The submitted evidence does not reveal any fact to demonstrate a malicious intention by the applicant. If so, the opposed mark shall not be cancelled under Article 4(1)(xix).

Based on the above findings, the Board conclude that the opposition was without merit and thus granted protection to the opposed mark as the status quo.

SpaceX Scores Win in Trademark Invalidation Action

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with Space Exploitation Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) in an attempt to revoke TM Reg no. 6613282 for the mark “SPACEX / spacex.co.jp” (cl. 25, 26) in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.
[Invalidation case no. 2023-890010, decided on June 4, 2024]

Contested mark

NDR Tech Co., Ltd. filed trademark application for a mark composed of the two word-elements “SPACEX” and “spacex.co.jp”, arranged in two lines (see below) for use on apparels and footwear in class 25 and insignias for wear, buckles for clothing, badges for wear, brooches for clothing, brassards in class 26 with the JPO on December 20, 2021 (TM App no. 2021-163633).

The JPO examiner granted protection to the mark on August 19, 2022.

Invalidation action by SpaceX

Space Exploitation Technologies Corporation, aka SpaceX, filed an invalidation action on February 15, 2023 and claimed the contested mark shall be invalidated in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii), (x), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(viii) is a provision to prohibit registration of trademark that contains the representation or name of any person, famous pseudonym, professional name, or pen name of another person, or famous abbreviation thereof.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits the registration of trademarks that are likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.

SpaceX could not rely on Article 4(1)(xi) because their attempt to register the mark “SPACEX” in class 25 (TM App no. 2020-125746) was unsuccessful due to a conflict with the earlier TM Reg no. 6222450 for wordmark “SPACEX” owned by NDR Tech.

SpaceX argued that the mark “SpaceX” has been widely recognized as a commercial name of the claimant among the general public in Japan even before the time of initial application of the contested mark due to its frequent appearance in print and broadcast media.

NDR Tech asserted that the domain name “spacex.co.jp” is only available to companies registered in Japan. As the proprietor of the domain, they have a legitimate interest in registering and owning the contested mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Invalidation Board admitted that the mark “SpaceX” has become famous among the general public as an abbreviation of the claimant.

It is obvious that the contested mark contains the term “SPACEX” and “spacex”, which are known as a famous abbreviation of the claimant. Based on the fact that NDR Tech did not obtain the consent of SpaceX, the contested mark does not comply with the requirements of Article 4(1)(viii).

Bearing in mind that the mark “SpaceX” has been used on T-shirts, hoodies and caps, the Board has reasons to believe that relevant consumers are likely to confuse a source of goods in question bearing the contested mark with SpaceX. If so, the contested mark shall be revoked under Article 4(1)(xv) as well.

https://shop.spacex.com/

In the decision, the Board noted ‘The fact that NDR Tech owns the domain “spacex.co.jp” is irrelevant to the invalidity of the contested mark based on the above articles.’

Chrysler Lost Trademark Opposition against “GEEP”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA US) LLC against TM Reg no. 6689119 for the mark “GEEP” with device (cl. 18, 25) due to dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with the mark “JEEP”.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900142, decided on May 31, 2024]

“GEEP”

A Japanese individual filed a trademark application for the mark “GEEP” with device (see below) for use on goods “bags and pouches; umbrellas; canes; clothing for pets” and others in class 18, and “clothing; belts; footwear; masquerade costumes; sports shoes; sportswear” and others in class 25 with the JPO on October 14, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-118091).

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action to the mark and granted protection on April 4, 2023. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on April 20, 2023.

Opposition by FCA US LLC

To oppose registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, FCA US LLC filed an opposition against the opposed mark on June 19, 2023.

FCA argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law because of the remarkable reputation and popularity of the JEEP mark as a source indicator of Chrysler vehicles and a high degree of similarity between the opposed mark “GEEP” and the opponent’s famous earlier registered mark “JEEP.”

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.

FCA contended that the opposed mark “GEEP” is similar to its own trademark “JEEP,” a globally famous automobile brand given a mere difference in the first letter “G” and “J”. Besides, the goods in question are identical or similar.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits the registration of trademarks that are likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.

FCA contended that given the high degree of resemblance between the opposed mark and “JEEP”, relevant consumers of the goods in question are likely to confuse a source of goods bearing the opposed mark with the opposing party.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that the mark “JEEP” has been widely recognized among general consumers to indicate the source of FCA’s goods and business.

However, the Board found both marks dissimilar on the grounds that:

  1. There are visual distinctions in the presence and absence of the blue device and between the first letter “G” and “J”. Thees differences are significant and clearly distinguishable in appearance. Consequently, both marks are anything but confusingly similar in appearance.
  2. The opposed mark does not give rise to a specific concept, whereas the cited mark has a meaning of “FCA’s automobile brand.” Accordingly, there is no risk of confusion in concept.
  3. Relevant consumers would consider respective mark different even if both marks have the same sound, because of clear distinction in appearance and concept as well as the overall impression of both marks.

By taking account of a low degree of similarity between the opposed mark and “JEEP”, and remote association between the goods in question and automobiles, the Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse the source of goods bearing the opposed mark with “JEEP”.

Based on the above findings, the Board conclude that the opposition was without merit and thus granted protection to the opposed mark as the status quo.

Trademark dispute: MARNI vs. MARNO

Posted on

The Italian fashion brand “MARNI” lost the trademark opposition against TM Reg no. 6658657 for the wordmark “MARNO” (cl. 14,18,25). The Japan Patent Office (JPO) found both marks dissimilar and less likelihood of confusion because there was insufficient evidence to support a certain degree of recognition of the mark “MARNI” among general consumers.
[Opposition case no. 2023-900065, decided on May 16, 2024]

“MARNO”

Godo Kaisha MARNO filed a trademark application for the word mark “MARNO” in standard character for use on goods “precious metals; jewelry; key rings; jewelry boxes; personal ornaments; clocks and watches” in class 14, “bags and pouches; umbrellas; canes; clothing for pets” in class 18, “clothing; belts; footwear; masquerade costumes; sports shoes; sportswear” in class 25 with the JPO on July 29, 2022 (TM App no. 2022-88022).

Apparently, the applicant promotes apparels for lady using the mark on their website.

https://marno.life/products/ivy-skirt

The JPO examiner did not issue an office action to the application and granted protection on December 13, 2024. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on January 13, 2023.

Opposition by MARNI

Marni Group S.r.l., an Italian luxury fashion house, filed an opposition on March 13, 2023 just before the lapse of a two-month statutory period and claimed the opposed mark “MARNO” shall be cancelled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing earlier trademark registrations (TM Reg no. 4842090, 4791866, 4786424, 3200522, 2339221, 6676890, IR1007074, IR1520528, IR1689338, IR698847) for the mark “MARNI”.

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.

MARNI contended that the opposed mark “MARNO” is similar to its own trademark “MARNI,” a globally renowned fast-fashion brand given a mere difference in the last letter “O” and “I”. Besides, the goods in question are identical or similar.

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits the registration of trademarks that are likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.

MARNI contended that the mark “MARNI” has become renowned among relevant consumers in connection with apparel. Given the high degree of resemblance between “MARNO” and “MARNI” as well as the goods, it is likely that consumers will confuse or misconceive the goods bearing the opposed mark “MARNO” with “MARNI.”

Article 4(1)(xix) proscribes the registration of a trademark that is identical with or similar to another entity’s famous mark if the trademark is intended for the purpose of gaining unfair profits or causing damage to the entity.

MARNI contended that the applicant had filed the opposed mark with the intention of obtaining unfair profits through free-riding on the well-known trademark “MARNI”.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted that the mark “MARNI” has been recognized among consumers who has high interest to fashion to some extent from the produced evidence, however, in view of the facts that the dates of the evidence are after the grant of protection of the opposed mark, the period and evaluation method of the brand ranking is unclear, and no evidence regarding the sales amount and advertisement of the goods bearing the mark MARNI are provided, the Board questioned whether the mark “MARNI” has been widely recognized among general consumers to indicate the source of MARNI’s goods and business.

Next, the Board assessed similarity of mark. In appearance and sound between “MARNO” and “MARNI”, the distinction of “O” and “I” at the end of the word has a significant impact on the overall visual and oral impression of the two marks, which both have only five letters and three sounds. Therefore, the marks are visually and phonetically distinguishable. Since both marks do not give rise to any specific meaning, it is impossible to compare the concept of the two marks. Accordingly, the Board has reason to believe that both marks are significantly dissimilar.

By taking account of insufficient recognition of the mark “MARNI” among relevant consumers and a low degree of similarity between two marks, it is unlikely that the consumer at the sight of the goods in question bearing the opposed mark confuse the source with MARNI.

Besides, the evidence presented to the Board does not provide grounds to believe that the applicant intended to obtain profits through the exploitation of the well-known trademark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed the opposition entirely.