<?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>DEAR YOU &#8211; MARKS IP LAW FIRM</title>
	<atom:link href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/tag/dear-you/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>Mon, 13 Jan 2025 03:06:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>ja</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>JPO Decision: Trademark “Dear U plus” dissimilar to “dear U”</title>
		<link>https://marks-iplaw.jp/dear-u-plus-vs-dear-u/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Masaki MIKAMI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jan 2025 02:52:09 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[2025]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alphabetical word]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 4(1)(xi)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Composite mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inherent distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Refusal appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Similarity of goods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Similarity of mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Similarity of service]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dear U]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dear U plus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DEAR YOU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JAPAN PATENT OFFICE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan Trademark Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark appeal]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://marks-iplaw.jp/?p=4916</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s refusal and granted registration of TM App no. 2023-99 <a class="more-link" href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/dear-u-plus-vs-dear-u/">Read More ...</a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>The Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s refusal and granted registration of TM App no. 2023-99199 for wordmark “Dear U plus” by finding dissimilarity to earlier marks, “dear U” and “DEAR YOU”.<br>[Appeal Case no. 2024-13602, decided on December 12, 2024]



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-light-green-cyan-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-light-green-cyan-background-color has-background is-style-wide"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>TM App no. 2023-99199</strong></h2>



<p><a href="https://fanplus.co.jp/">Fanplus, Inc.</a> filled a trademark application for wordmark “<a href="https://www.dearuplus.co.jp/">Dear U plus</a>” in standard character for use on goods and services in classes 9, 35, 41 and 42 with the JPO on September 6, 2023.</p>


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-full is-resized"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" width="864" height="347" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Dear-U-plus-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-4918" style="width:565px;height:auto" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Dear-U-plus-1.jpg 864w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Dear-U-plus-1-300x120.jpg 300w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Dear-U-plus-1-768x308.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" /></figure></div>


<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-light-green-cyan-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-light-green-cyan-background-color has-background is-style-dots"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Article 4(1)(xi)</strong></h2>



<p>On June 3, 2024, the JPO examiner rejected the applied mark based on <strong>Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law</strong> by citing earlier TM Reg nos. 6570375 “dear U” (classes 9, 38, 41, and 45) and 6756169 “DEAR YOU” (classes 20, 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 35, and 43).</p>


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-full is-resized"><img decoding="async" width="855" height="598" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Cited-marks.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-4919" style="width:546px;height:auto" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Cited-marks.jpg 855w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Cited-marks-300x210.jpg 300w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Cited-marks-768x537.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 855px) 100vw, 855px" /></figure></div>


<p>In the refusal, the examiner asserted that the word “plus” is often used in conjunction with a source indicator to represent that the quality of the goods or services offered is more advanced or improved than that of existing goods or services. Under the circumstances, relevant consumers would consider the word “plus” less distinctive in connection with the goods and services in question. Therefore, the “Dear U” element is dominant in the applied mark. If so, it is reasonable to conclude that the applied mark is aurally and conceptually similar to the cited marks.</p>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-light-green-cyan-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-light-green-cyan-background-color has-background is-style-dots"/>



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



<p>The applicant filed an appeal against the examiner’s refusal with the JPO on August 23, 2024, and argued dissimilarity of mark.</p>



<p>The JPO Appeal Board found that the applied mark “Dear U plus” did not have a specific meaning and would be recognized as a whole, taking into account a visual configuration represented by the same font and a less redundant pronunciation.</p>



<p>In assessing similarity of mark, the Board held:</p>



<div class="wp-block-group"><div class="wp-block-group__inner-container is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained">
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>The applied mark is visually distinguishable from the cited marks because of the presence of the term “plus” and the difference between the letter “U” and “YOU”. Furthermore, there are differences in the upper and lower case of the words “Dear,” “dear,” and “DEAR”.</p>



<p>Aurally, even though the applied mark and the cited marks contain the same sound “dɪr-juː”, the whole sounds are distinguishable because the difference in the suffix sound “plʌs&#8221; makes the overall tone and nuance of respective mark significantly different.</p>



<p>The conceptual aspect does not have impact on the assessment as the applied mark has no specific meaning.</p>
</blockquote>
</div></div>



<p>Based on the foregoing, the Board found both marks dissimilar and held that the examiner erroneously applied <strong>Article 4(1)(xi)</strong>. Consequently, the JPO decided to overturn the examiner’s refection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
