In a trademark dispute over the similarity between “FLOW3D” and “Flow360,” the Japan Patent Office (JPO) assessed the respective mark in its entirety and found them to be dissimilar even though they share the first word.
[Opposition case no. 2025-900008, decided on September 2, 2025]
Flow360
Flex Compute Incorporated, a US company, filed a trademark application of wordmark “Flow360” in standard character for use on SaaS in Class 42 with the JPO on February 8, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-12572].
The JPO examiner did not raise any refusal to the mark and granted protection on September 18, 2024. Upon payment of statutory registration fee, the mark was registered on October 29, 2024 [TM Reg no. 6859262], and published for a post-grant opposition on November 7, 2024.
FLOW3D
Flow Science Incorporated, an owner of earlier TM Reg no. 4284043 for wordmark consisting of “FLOW3D” and its Japanese transliteration arranged in two lines (see below) on computer programs in Class 9, filed an opposition against the mark “Flow360” on January 7, 2025, and claimed its cancellation in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing the mark “FLOW3D.”
In the opposition brief, the claimant argued that both “360” and “3D” are low in distinctiveness. Therefore, the first word “FLOW” plays a dominant role in identifying the source of the goods and services in question, and relevant consumers are likely to be misled or confused because of the common word.
JPO Decision
The JPO Opposition Board found that the contested mark was not cancelled based on Article 4(1)(xi) by stating as follows.
The Board noted that there is no reasonable ground to find that the elements “360” and “3D” are immediately perceived as indicating the nature or quality of the goods and services in question. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to consider the term “FLOW” as a dominant element when comparing the marks in accordance with the claimant’s assertion.
The appearance and pronunciation of the contested mark and the cited mark are distinguishable due to a clear difference in constituent characters and sound. A conceptual comparison is neutral, as neither the contested mark nor the cited mark has any clear meaning.
Therefore, considering the overall commercial impressions, recollections, and associations that respective marks as a whole give to relevant traders and consumers through appearance, pronunciation, and concept, both marks should be regarded as dissimilar and distinguishable, with no likelihood of confusion.