<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Cool Water &#8211; MARKS IP LAW FIRM</title>
	<atom:link href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/tag/cool-water/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://marks-iplaw.jp</link>
	<description>Japanese IP Attorney Firm specializing in Trademarks with a commitment to excellence</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2026 06:58:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>ja</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Two words arranged in two lines with different fonts are considered in their entirety, the JPO says</title>
		<link>https://marks-iplaw.jp/cool-water-reborn-vs-reborn/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Masaki MIKAMI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2026 06:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[2026]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 4(1)(xi)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Composite mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compound mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Refusal appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Similarity of mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cool Water]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JAPAN PATENT OFFICE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan Trademark Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[REBORN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark appeal]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://marks-iplaw.jp/?p=5361</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s rejection against IR no. 1653013 for a stylized wordmark <a class="more-link" href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/cool-water-reborn-vs-reborn/">Read More ...</a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>The Japan Patent Office (JPO) reversed the examiner’s rejection against IR no. 1653013 for a stylized wordmark consisting of “Cool Water” and “REBORN” arranged in two lines due to a similarity to the earlier mark “Re:born” and found both marks dissimilar.<br>[Appeal case no. 2025-650030, decided on February 18, 2026]



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-background is-style-wide" style="background-color:#272f68;color:#272f68"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>IR no. 1653013</strong></h2>



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


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-full is-resized"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" width="832" height="408" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/IR-no-1653013.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-5362" style="width:383px;height:auto" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/IR-no-1653013.jpg 832w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/IR-no-1653013-300x147.jpg 300w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/IR-no-1653013-768x377.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 832px) 100vw, 832px" /></figure>
</div>


<p>The applicant promotes Eau de Toilette bearing the mark.</p>


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-full is-resized"><img decoding="async" width="583" height="449" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Cool-Water-REBORN.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-5363" style="width:500px;height:auto" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Cool-Water-REBORN.jpg 583w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Cool-Water-REBORN-300x231.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 583px) 100vw, 583px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><a href="https://www.zinodavidoff.com/">https://www.zinodavidoff.com/</a></figcaption></figure>
</div>


<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-background is-style-dots" style="background-color:#272f68;color:#272f68"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Earlier marks</strong></h2>



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


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-full is-resized"><img decoding="async" width="737" height="266" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Reborn.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-5364" style="width:632px;height:auto" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Reborn.jpg 737w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Reborn-300x108.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 737px) 100vw, 737px" /></figure>
</div>


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



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-background is-style-dots" style="background-color:#272f68;color:#272f68"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>JPO Appeal Board decision</strong></h2>



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



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Despite the evident divergence in font and size, the terms &#8220;Cool Water&#8221; and &#8220;REBORN&#8221;, arranged in two lines, appear to be positioned in a close and unified manner.</li>



<li>The sound “Cool water reborn” can be articulated as a single, uninterrupted phrase.</li>



<li>Conceptually, there is no reason for relevant consumers to take more note of the literal element “REBORN,” since “Cool Water” also has a clear meaning.</li>



<li>Therefore, the consumers are unlikely to see the term “REBORN” dominant in the mark. The Board found no evidence to support that the term plays a significant role in identifying the source of goods in question by taking into consideration actual trade practice in the relevant industry.</li>
</ul>



<p>Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the examiner erred in finding similarity of the marks and thus erroneously applied <strong>Article 4(1)(xi)</strong>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
