The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Erreà Sport S.p.A. in a trademark opposition against TM Reg. No. 6903310 for a double diamond device mark, finding clear visual differences when compared to the Erreà Sport double diamond symbol. (Opposition Case No. 2025-900101, decided on July 2, 2026)
Contested Mark
Sakagawa Co., Ltd. sought registration for a device mark consisting of two vertically oriented, thick-lined, symmetrical rhombus shapes (see below) for footwear in Class 25, and retail/wholesale services for footwear in Class 35.
The applicant promotes Japanese sandals bearing the contested mark.
As the JPO examiner did not find any absolute or relative grounds for refusal, the contested mark was granted registration on March 4, 2025 [TM Reg. No. 6903310].
Opposition by Erreà Sport
Before the lapse of the two-month statutory opposition period, Erreà Sport S.p.A., an Italian company specializing in the manufacture of technical sportswear, filed an opposition with the JPO on May 12, 2025. They requested cancellation under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law, citing their earlier registered mark (see below) featuring their double diamond symbol designating footwear in Class 25.
In the opposition, Erreà Sport argued:
“The most readily recognizable and fundamental characteristic of the figurative elements of both marks is that each consists of two diamond-shaped figures arranged side by side. Given this shared feature, consumers are likely to receive a strong visual impression of the marks, retain that impression in their memory, and recall it when encountering the marks. Accordingly, these marks are visually similar to such an extent that they are liable to be mistaken for one another.”
JPO Decision
The Opposition Board observed that both the Contested Mark and the Cited Mark consist purely of abstract geometric (rhombus/polygonal) shapes. As neither design conveys a recognized meaning or word in Japan, the JPO determined that neither mark generates a specific pronunciation or concept.
Comparing the visual features:
- Contested Mark: Two separate, thick-lined rhombus figures placed side-by-side.
- Cited Mark: A single solid-black polygon created by overlapping geometric shapes with an outline.
The JPO held that the visual impression between the two is markedly distinct. Since pronunciation and concept could not be compared, the clear visual difference was decisive. The JPO concluded that consumers are unlikely to confuse the two marks, rendering them dissimilar.
The Opposer further argued that the Cited Mark is widely recognized due to its sponsorship of professional sports teams and distribution of uniforms in Japan, which would amplify the risk of confusion.
However, the Opposition Board rejected this argument due to a lack of concrete evidence. The Opposer failed to submit critical data such as:
- Sales figures and market share in Japan
- Advertising frequency, reach, and marketing expenditure
Without objective commercial metrics, the JPO could not evaluate the degree of recognition among Japanese consumers. Consequently, the claim of an increased risk of confusion was dismissed.