<?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>Dolce Sport &#8211; MARKS IP LAW FIRM</title>
	<atom:link href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/tag/dolce-sport/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, 03 Jan 2022 09:08:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>ja</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Dolce &#038; Gabbana failed in a trademark opposition to block DolceSport</title>
		<link>https://marks-iplaw.jp/dolce-vs-dolcesport/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Masaki MIKAMI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2021 03:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[2021]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abbreviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alphabetical word]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 4(1)(xv)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Famous mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Similarity of mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOLCE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dolce & Gabbana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dolce Sport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JAPAN PATENT OFFICE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan Trademark Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark opposition]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marks-iplaw.jp/?p=3099</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Japan Patent Office dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by the Italian luxury firm, Dolce &#38; Gabba <a class="more-link" href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/dolce-vs-dolcesport/">Read More ...</a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>The Japan Patent Office dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by the Italian luxury firm, Dolce &amp; Gabbana against trademark registration no. 6259630 for word mark “DolceSport” in class 18, 20, 22, 25, and 28 by finding a less likelihood of confusion with “Dolce &amp; Gabbana.”</p>



[Opposition case no. 2020-900206, Gazette issued date: July 30, 2021]



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-background has-cyan-bluish-gray-background-color has-cyan-bluish-gray-color is-style-dots"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>“Dolce Sport”</strong></h2>



<p>Opposed mark, consisting of the word “Dolce Sport” in standard character, was filed by a Japanese company, <a href="https://siskk.com/">SIS Co., Ltd. </a>for use on various goods belonging to class 18,20, 22, 25 and 28 with the JPO on May 30, 2019 (TM Application no. 2019-83931).</p>



<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-full is-resized"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" src="http://www.marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DolceSport.png" alt="" class="wp-image-3100" width="462" height="204" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DolceSport.png 870w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DolceSport-300x133.png 300w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DolceSport-768x341.png 768w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DolceSport-600x266.png 600w" sizes="(max-width: 462px) 100vw, 462px" /></figure></div>



<p>The JPO admitted registration on June 15, 2020 and published for registration on July 7, 2020.</p>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-background has-cyan-bluish-gray-background-color has-cyan-bluish-gray-color is-style-dots"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Opposition by Dolce &amp; Gabbana</strong></h2>



<p>Dolce &amp; Gabbana filed an opposition on August 19, 2020 and argued the opposed mark “Dolce Sport” shall be cancelled in contravention of <strong>Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law</strong> since relevant consumes are likely to confuse the source of goods bearing the opposed mark with Dolce &amp; Gabbana because of a close resemblance between “Dolce Sport” and a word “Dolce” that has become famous per se as a source indicator of the opponent.</p>



<p>Article <strong>4(1)(xv)</strong> is a provision to prohibit registration of a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with the business of other entities.</p>



<p>To apply the article, it is requisite that the mark of other entities has acquired a certain degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers in Japan.</p>



<p>Opponent produced evidence to demonstrate the word “Dolce” per se has been used on their goods, e.g. perfume, cosmetics, and bags. See below.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" width="1024" height="498" src="http://www.marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Dolce-1024x498.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-3101" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Dolce-1024x498.jpg 1024w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Dolce-300x146.jpg 300w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Dolce-768x374.jpg 768w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Dolce-600x292.jpg 600w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Dolce.jpg 1340w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-background has-cyan-bluish-gray-background-color has-cyan-bluish-gray-color is-style-dots"/>



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



<p>The JPO Opposition Board did not admit the term “Dolce” per se has become famous as a source indicator of Dolce &amp; Gabbana by stating that famous brand “Dolce &amp; Gabbana” is obviously represented adjacent to the term “Dolce” on their goods. If so, the Board has good reason to believe that it would be unclear whether the term has acquired a certain degree of reputation as a source indicator of the opponent from the produced evidence. Besides, the Board questioned whether “Dolce” has been known as an abbreviation of “Dolce &amp; Gabbana” due to the same reason.</p>



<p>Based on the foregoing, the Board decided that, even if the opposed mark “Dolce Sport” has a medium degree of similarity with the “Dolce” and the goods in question are somewhat associated with the opponent business, relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse or misconceive a source of the opposed mark with Dolce &amp; Gabbana by taking account of less originality of the term “Dolce” having a meaning of ‘sweet; dessert’ in Italian language and lack of good-will protectable under Article 4(1)(xv) enough to indicate a source of “Dolce &amp; Gabbana”.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
