タグ: Japan Trademark Law

JPO Finds Game Software Similar to Computers and Display Monitors for Trademark Purposes

Posted on

In a recent appeal decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) upheld the examiner’s refusal to TM App no. 2024-134546 for wordmark “SHINOBI” after finding the designated game software similar to the cited electronic devices and display monitors.
[Appeal case no. 2025-9765, decided on May 22, 2026]

SHINOBI by SEGA

Sega Corporation, a Japanese video game company, filed an application to register the word mark “SHINOBI” in standard characters covering “game programs for mobile phones or computers; computer game software; virtual reality game software” in class 9 with the JPO on December 13, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-134546].

https://shinobi-art-of-vengeance.sega.jp/

JPO Examination

On March 24, 2025, the examiner rejected the mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing IR no. 1659265 for word mark “SHINOBI” in relation to the goods of “Electronic devices for displaying, editing, recording, encoding, storing, transferring, transmitting or reproducing data, electronic data, video and audio excluding electronic devices for playing video games; display monitors; apparatus for the reproduction of sound or images” in class 9.

The examiner considered the goods similar despite the applicant’s contention that game software and electronic devices are fundamentally different products produced and sold by different industries.

To contest, SEGA filed an appeal against the rejection on June 24, 2025, and challenging the examiner’s finding of similarity between the goods.

Appeal Board decision

The Appeal Board reiterated the long-established principle that the similarity of goods does not depend on whether consumers would confuse the goods themselves.

Instead, the relevant question is whether the use of identical or similar trademarks on those goods would lead consumers to believe that the goods originate from the same commercial source.

In making that assessment, the JPO considered factors such as:

• production channels;
• sales channels;
• quality and characteristics;
• intended purpose;
• consumer groups; and
• the relationship between finished products and components.

Hardware and software as closely related goods

The Appeal Board first observed that the cited goods essentially covered general-purpose electronic devices such as computers and smartphones, as well as display monitors.

Game software, by its nature, is executed on computers, smartphones, and similar electronic devices. Display monitors are likewise commonly used when operating computer games.

Accordingly, the JPO found that the cited electronic devices and monitors are products used to run or utilize the applicant’s game software, creating a close commercial relationship between the goods.

Production and sales channels

The applicant argued that game software is typically produced by game developers, whereas computers and monitors are manufactured by electronics companies.

However, the JPO relied on marketplace evidence showing that certain businesses manufacture and offer both gaming software and computer-related hardware products.

The Appeal Board therefore concluded that the production sources may overlap.

The same reasoning was applied to sales channels.

According to the JPO, game software, computers, and display monitors are frequently sold through the same retail outlets, including large electronics stores. In many cases, the products are displayed in close proximity and may even be offered by the same supplier.

Purpose and consumers

The Board also emphasized that gaming monitors are widely marketed and sold specifically for gaming purposes.

Moreover, although the cited specification expressly excluded dedicated video game consoles, it still encompassed general-purpose computers and smartphones capable of running games.

As a result, both categories of goods may, in certain circumstances, share the same gaming-related purpose.

The Board further noted that the relevant consumers substantially overlap, since both goods target ordinary consumers who use computers and similar electronic devices.

Software and hardware: a relationship close to components and finished products

Notably, the Board also addressed the relationship between software and hardware.

While acknowledging that software and hardware are not literally a finished product and its component, the JPO nevertheless found them to be closely comparable to such a relationship.

Game software is installed on electronic devices and used in conjunction with monitors. In practice, the products function together as part of a single user experience.

This functional interdependence weighed heavily in favor of finding similarity.

Conclusion

Taking all relevant factors into account, the Appeal Board concluded that the designated game software and the cited electronic devices and display monitors constitute similar goods. The examiner therefore did not err in refusing the application under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Act.

JPO Refuses “PICASSO” for Printed Matter and Artworks Despite Authorization from the Picasso Family

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) affirmed an examiner’s refusal of the word mark “PICASSO” for Class 16 goods, finding that consumers would perceive the mark merely as indicating the author, subject matter, or content of the goods rather than their commercial origin.
[Appeal case no. 2025-15872, decided on April 21, 2026]

PICASSO

Picasso International Incorporation, a Taiwanese company, sought to register the wordmark “PICASSO” in standard characters for goods including printed matter and artworks with the JPO on January 15, 2025 [TM App no. 2025-3195].

JPO Examination

On August 19, 2025, the JPO examiner refused registration under Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law, which bars registration of marks that merely describe the quality, characteristics, or other attributes of the designated goods or services.
The examiner first noted that “PICASSO” is universally recognized as referring to Pablo Picasso, the famous Spanish painter. When the mark is used on artworks, consumers would naturally perceive it as identifying the author of the work. In the case of reproductions, consumers would understand it as identifying the author of the original artwork. Therefore, the examiner concluded that, in relation to artworks, the term “PICASSO” functions primarily as an indication of authorship rather than as a trademark identifying a particular commercial source. The examiner reached a similar conclusion for printed matter by noting that:
Consumers encountering the mark on printed matter would merely understand it to mean:
• a publication about Picasso;
• a publication containing Picasso’s works; or
• a publication otherwise related to Picasso.
The mark would therefore be perceived as describing the content of the goods rather than indicating a single commercial source.

Appeal Trial

On October 6, 2025, the applicant filed an appeal against the examiner’s rejection and argued that the mark possessed sufficient inherent distinctiveness of the mark “PICASSO” based on the following grounds.
First, it argued that its representative had obtained authorization from the Picasso family to develop, manufacture, and sell products reproducing Picasso’s artworks throughout the Asia-Pacific region.
Second, the applicant pointed out that it already owned numerous PICASSO trademark registrations in Japan.
Third, the applicant argued that consumers would not necessarily encounter the mark only as a title or content indication. If PICASSO appeared as the name of a publisher or source identifier, consumers could allegedly recognize it as distinguishing the applicant’s goods from those of other publishers.

The JPO Appeal Board Decision

The JPO did not side with the applicant. The decision emphasizes that the assessment under Article 3(1)(iii) is based on how relevant consumers and traders would ordinarily perceive the mark when used in relation to the designated goods.
The key question is not whether a particular applicant has obtained authorization from the individual’s heirs or estate. Nor is the question whether the applicant already owns other trademark registrations.
Instead, the decisive issue is whether the mark “PICASSO” would generally be understood as describing characteristics of the goods.
The Board considered that relevant consumers would perceive PICASSO merely as indicating that the goods relate to Picasso, such as:
• artworks created by Picasso;
• reproductions of Picasso’s works;
• books about Picasso; or
• publications containing Picasso’s works.
The Appeal Board further stressed the public-interest rationale underlying Article 3(1)(iii).
Citing a Japan Supreme Court precedent, the JPO noted that descriptive indications should remain available for use by all market participants. Because publishers, museums, galleries, art dealers, and others may legitimately need to use the name “Picasso” to describe the content, authorship, or subject matter of their products, granting one entity exclusive trademark rights over the term would be inappropriate.
The JPO Appeal Board therefore concluded that PICASSO lacks source-identifying significance for the relevant goods and cannot function as a trademark.

What about earlier registrations?

The applicant also relied on trademark registrations consisting of the names of historical figures, including artists.
The JPO dismissed this argument, reiterating a familiar principle of Japanese trademark practice:
Registrability must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific mark, the designated goods or services, and the actual circumstances of trade at the time of examination or appeal.
The existence of earlier registrations does not control the registrability of a subsequent application.

Revised JPO Trial and Appeal Procedures

Posted on

On May 21, 2026, amendments to the JPO’s trial and appeal procedures came into force following the 2022 revision of Japan’s Code of Civil Procedure. Importantly, the new rules apply not only to newly filed matters, but also to all cases pending before the JPO as of the effective date.

The amendments modernize evidentiary procedures and expand the use of digital tools in JPO proceedings. Key changes include the following:

🔹 Electronic Evidence

The JPO now expressly recognizes electronic records — including digitized documents, video files, and audio files — as admissible evidence.

In practice, however, the filing method remains relatively conservative. Electronic evidence must still be submitted via physical media such as CD-Rs or DVD-Rs, and the examination procedures largely follow the traditional framework applicable to documentary evidence.

As a result, parties may continue existing practices for submitting trademark gazette, webpages, emails, images, videos, and audio recordings.

🔹 Expansion of Web Conference Procedures

The amendments significantly expand the use of web conferences in JPO proceedings.

Witness examinations and expert testimony may now be conducted remotely from a broader range of locations, subject to procedural safeguards similar to those applicable to remote oral hearings.

The reforms also introduce:
• remote inspections conducted through web conference systems; and
• participation of interpreters via web conference (or by telephone conference where necessary).

These developments reflect the JPO’s continued movement toward more flexible and digital-friendly proceedings.

🔹 Changes to Hearing Records

The revised rules also strengthen procedural transparency regarding hearing records.

Where a party objects to the contents of a hearing record, the objection itself and its substance must now be recorded by the trial clerk.

In addition, obvious clerical or calculation errors may be corrected either upon request or ex officio at any time.

Another notable development is the formal recognition that video and audio recordings may be incorporated into hearing records through electronic recording media. In some cases, recorded audio or video testimony may even replace written descriptions in the official record.

🔹 Simplification of Witness and Expert Oaths

The traditional requirement for witnesses and expert witnesses to sign written oath documents has, in principle, been abolished.

Under the new rules, oral administration of the oath will generally suffice, although written oaths remain available where special circumstances prevent oral recitation.

These amendments are another example of Japan’s gradual but steady modernization of administrative adjudication procedures, particularly in relation to digital evidence and remote participation.

For practitioners involved in JPO litigation and appeals, understanding these procedural updates will be increasingly important in managing evidence and hearings effectively.

JPO Finds “ON” Distinctive in Relation to Footwear

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) has reversed an examiner’s refusal of International Registration (IR) No. 1050016 for the mark “ON,” filed by On Clouds GmbH, finding that the mark possesses inherent distinctiveness in relation to footwear.
[Appeal Case No. 2023-650076, decided on April 9, 2026]

IR No. 1050016 “ON”

On Clouds GmbH, a Swiss company renowned for its “On” brand and its leadership in performance sportswear and athletic shoes, filed a trademark application for the wordmark “ON” in standard characters via the Madrid Protocol on August 13, 2020. The application designated footwear in Class 25.

JPO Examiner’s Rejection

The JPO examiner initially found the mark unregistrable, stating:

“A mark comprising only two Latin letters is perceived as a type of symbol or code used to indicate product model numbers or similar identifiers. As such, it constitutes a mark consisting solely of an extremely simple and common mark, and thus falls under Article 3(1)(v) of the Japan Trademark Law.”

The examiner further noted that even after taking into account the evidence submitted by the applicant, it was insufficient to prove that the mark had acquired distinctiveness through use under Article 3(2). Consequently, the examiner issued a final refusal on May 10, 2023.

In response, On Clouds GmbH filed an appeal on September 4, 2023, arguing both the inherent and acquired distinctiveness of the mark “ON” specifically within the footwear industry.

Appeal Board Decision

The JPO Appeal Board found that the examiner erred in applying Article 3(1)(v), observing that:

“Generally, while two Latin letters may be used as symbols or codes to indicate part or model numbers, the Board could not find evidence of actual use of the letters ‘ON’ in the footwear industry for such purposes. Furthermore, ‘On AG,’ a group company of the applicant, launched the ‘On’ brand as a Swiss-born footwear label in 2010. Currently, more than 9,500 retail stores in over 66 countries carry ‘On’ products. In Japan, ‘On’ shoes have been distributed since 2015 through over 650 retailers and various e-commerce sites. The evidence shows that the brand is extensively featured in sports and fashion magazines, website articles, and newspapers, alongside robust advertising via social media, celebrity endorsements, and promotional events.”

Based on these findings—specifically that “ON” is a well-known English word with no established commercial practice as a model number in the footwear industry, and that the mark is already widely recognized by Japanese consumers—the Board concluded that relevant consumers are unlikely to perceive the mark merely as a model or part number.

As a result, the Board overturned the examiner’s rejection and granted registration for the mark “ON,” ruling that it does not fall under Article 3(1)(v).

ARC’TERYX Unsuccessful Trademark Opposition against “Arcsilk”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Amer Sports Canada Incorporated against TM Registration No. 6889980 for the wordmark “Arcsilk” in Class 25, finding it dissimilar to and unlikely to be confused with “ARC’TERYX.”
[Opposition Case No. 2025-900056, decided on April 6, 2026]

The Contested Mark: “Arcsilk”

The contested mark, consisting of the word “Arcsilk” in standard characters, was filed by NIHONWASOU HOLDINGS, Inc. on December 27, 2023 [TM App. 2023-143938]. The application designates various goods, including clothing and footwear, in Classes 24 and 25.

The JPO examiner found no grounds for refusal and granted registration of the mark on September 20, 2024. Subsequently, the mark was published for post-grant opposition on January 11, 2025.

Opposition by ARC’TERYX

Amer Sports Canada Incorporated filed an opposition on March 12, 2025, seeking cancellation of the contested mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law, citing its earlier trademark registration No. 6748891 for the wordmark “ARC’TERYX” in Class 25.

In the opposition, the claimant alleged that the cited mark has become so widely known both in Japan and overseas that the use of the characters “ARC’TERYX” on outdoor goods immediately causes traders and consumers to recognize it as referring to the claimant. Furthermore, they argued that the term “ARC” is widely recognized even among general consumers as referring to the “ARC’TERYX” brand. The claimant contended that “silk” is a descriptive term for raw materials in Class 25 and cannot function as a source indicator. Therefore, they argued that “Arc” is the dominant portion of the contested mark. Since both marks share the dominant element “ARC,” the claimant asserted they are confusingly similar in appearance, concept, and pronunciation.

Additionally, the claimant argued that because the goods and target consumers are identical, the use of “Arcsilk” would lead consumers to misidentify the goods as being from a business entity with an economic or organizational relationship with the claimant.

JPO Decision

Surprisingly, the JPO Opposition Board found that the cited mark “ARC’TERYX” had not achieved a level of widespread recognition sufficient to support the claim of being a famous mark, stating:

“No evidence has been submitted that would allow for an objective and concrete assessment of facts concerning the period of use of the cited mark; sales figures, market share, and business scale; or the expenditures, methods, frequency, and duration of advertising activities. Consequently, we cannot find that the cited mark ‘ARC’TERYX’ was widely recognized among domestic dealers and consumers as an indication of the claimant’s goods at the time of the application or the registration of the contested mark.”

Regarding the similarity of the marks, the Board found that:

  • Visually: The marks are clearly distinguishable due to the presence of the apostrophe and the difference between “silk” and “TERYX.”
  • Aurally: “Arc-silk” and “Arc-teryx” differ in syllable count and constituent sounds, making them clearly distinguishable even when pronounced continuously.
  • Conceptually: The comparison is neutral as neither mark gives rise to a specific, well-defined meaning.

Based on the finding that the cited mark lacked evidence of widespread recognition and possessed a low degree of similarity to the contested mark, the Board concluded there was no risk of confusion. Consequently, the Board ruled that the contested mark should not be cancelled under Article 4(1)(xi) or (xv) of the Trademark Law.

JPO Decision: No Likelihood of Confusion with Lacoste Crocodile Logo

Posted on

In a trademark dispute arguing similarity to and likelihood of confusion with the Lacoste Crocodile logo, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Lacoste.
[Opposition case no. 2025-90093, decided on April 6, 2026]

Contested mark

Yagyu Office Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application for a design depicting a green crocodile lying prone, facing to the right with its mouth wide open (see below) in connection with various goods, including apparel, sportswear, and footwear of classes 18 and 25 at the JPO on June 14, 2024. [TM App no. 2024-64585]

On February 14, 2025, the JPO examiner granted registration of the mark without raising any objections.

Opposition by Lacoste

On May 1, 2025, Lacoste filed an opposition against the contested mark and claimed cancellation of the contested mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing its well-known crocodile logos.

Lacoste argued that the contested mark consists of a design depicting a green crocodile lying prone, facing to the right with its mouth wide open, and thus creates a similar commercial impression to the cited mark due to a high degree of visual similarity in its entirety. Taking into account the remarkable reputation of the cited mark and the close resemblance between the marks, the average consumers are likely to confuse a source of the goods in question bearing the contested mark with the cited mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board found that the cited mark has been famous among relevant consumers and traders in Japan and other jurisdictions as a source-identifier of Lacoste’s business.

However, the JPO observed the contested mark would not be recognized as a crocodile, but “a light green geometric figure formed by white linear cutouts. It depicts a right-facing creature with an open mouth, a thick body, four legs, and a long, slightly curved tail extending backward.”

While the JPO acknowledged that the contested mark could be perceived as representing some types of reptile, it found that the design was too abstract to evoke a specific animal. As such, it was held not to give rise to any specific pronunciation or concept.

In contrast, the cited mark is recognized as clearly depicting a crocodile and conveying the well-known brand identity associated with Lacoste.

Based on the differences in concept and the tail orientation (extended backward vs. raised upward), the Board found that both marks are distinguishable in appearance as well, and therefore dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion, even if the goods in question are highly related to Lacoste’s business.

MARKS IP successfully assists “European Sugar Cone” with proving acquired distinctiveness as a trademark for ice cream in Japan

Posted on

In an administrative appeal, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to overturn the examiner’s rejection of TM App no. 2023-14684 for the stylized wordmark “European Sugar Cone,” written in Japanese Katakana characters, by finding acquired distinctiveness of the mark in relation to the sugar cone ice cream multipack of Class 30.
[Appeal case no. 2024-14037, decided on March 16, 2026]

European Sugar Cone

Kracie, Ltd., a Japanese corporation established in 1887, operating in the business fields of toiletries & cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and foods, filed a trademark application for the stylized wordmark “European Sugar Cone” written in Japanese Katakana character (see below) by designating several goods in Class 30, including ice cream, with the JPO on February 14, 2023. [TM App no. 2023-14684]

“European Sugar Cone” is a long-selling cone ice cream that has been manufactured and marketed by Kracie for nearly four decades (first use in 1986). Since its launch, the “European Sugar Cone” ice cream has been characterized by its distinctive three-layer combination of vanilla ice cream, chocolate coating, and a crispy sugar cone, which together create a well-balanced texture and flavor.

The name comes from the concept of bringing the experience of enjoying cone ice cream—similar to that found at European street-side ice cream shops—into Japanese households.

Examiner’s rejection

The JPO examiner rejected the mark laid down in Article 3(1)(iii) and 4(1)(xvi) of the Japan Trademark Law, because the word “European” suggests that the goods in question come from, or are associated with European countries. The term “Sugar Cone” is commonly used in connection with ice cream to indicate sugar cone ice cream. Therefore, relevant consumers would merely perceive the mark as a descriptive indication of ice cream.

Furthermore, when the mark is used in connection with goods other than ice cream, it may misrepresent the quality of such goods.

Acquired Distinctiveness

On September 2, 2024, Marks IP, on behalf of Kracie, filed an appeal against the examiner’s rejection and requested registration by arguing acquired distinctiveness of the mark “European Sugar Cone” with sufficient evidence based on Article 3(2).

For the purpose of demonstrating acquired distinctiveness of the mark as a commercial origin, we proposed to conduct the brand awareness survey that targets a total of 1,000 men and women aged from 15 to 79 who had purchased an ice cream multipack for the past three months (summer season), and to restrict the designated goods in Class 30 to sugar cone ice cream multipack.

The survey, conducted from October 7 to 9, 2025, revealed 74.9% of the interviewees answered that they knew an ice cream multipack bearing the mark “European Sugar Cone”.

JPO Appeal Board Decision

The JPO Appeal Board noted that the evidence is sufficient to find the mark has acquired distinctiveness for relevant consumers to identify a specific commercial origin of the amended goods (sugar cone ice cream multipack) by stating:

Since its launch in 1986, the goods using the mark have been continuously sold nationwide for nearly 40 years, achieving cumulative sales of over 342 million units and stable annual revenues of JPY 2.5 – 5.4 billion. Since 2020, it has held a market share exceeding 40% in the categories of cone ice cream multipack.

The ice cream has been extensively promoted through television commercials since 1987, including over 1,000 nationwide broadcasts in 2022 alone. It has also ranked highly in consumer preference surveys and gained recognition through third-party media coverage and collaborations across various product fields.

Furthermore, a consumer survey revealed that 74.6% of respondents recognized the goods from the mark itself, indicating a high level of public awareness.

Based on the foregoing, the Board has a reason to believe that the mark has become widely recognized by consumers as identifying the applicant’s cone-type ice cream multipack.

Accordingly, the Board decided to overturn the examiner’s rejection and granted registration of the mark “European Sugar Cone” by applying Article 3(2).

Trademark Dispute: RUBIK CUBE vs RUBiK Pi

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the opposition to TM Reg no. 6945136 for the stylized mark “RUBiK Pi,” claimed by SPIN MASTER TOYS UK LIMITED, the owner of the famous “RUBIK CUBE” mark for the three-dimensional puzzle cube, by finding dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion between the two marks.
[Opposition case no. 2025-900188, decided on March 16, 2026]

TM Reg no. 6945136

The contested mark (see below) was filed by Thunder Software Technology Co., Ltd., a leading Chinese provider of smart operating system (OS) technologies and services, for use on computer-related goods and services in Classes 9, 41, and 42 with the JPO on December 3, 2024 [TM App no. 2024-129535].

The literal element of the mark appears to be “RUBi Pi” due to a cube design placed between two terms. However, the applicant’s website indicates the contested mark in colors to be read as “RUBIK Pi”.

https://www.thundercomm.com/product/rubik-pi/

The JPO examiner did not issue a notice of grounds for refusal. The mark was registered on July 4, 2025, and then published for a post-grant opposition on July 14.

Opposition by SPIN MASTER TOYS UK LIMITED

On September 16, 2025, just before the lapse of statutory opposition period for two months, SPIN MASTER TOYS UK LIMITED filed an opposition against the contested mark and claimed cancellation of its entire registration in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing the earlier marks in connection with the world-famous three-dimensional puzzle cube (Cited mark No. 1 – 6), “RUBIK CUBE”.

The claimant argued that relevant consumers and traders will consider the cube design representing the letter “K,” and thus the contested mark, to be read as “RUBIK” or “RUBIK Pi” in the course of actual business, given that the applicant’s product (a lightweight development board for AI platforms) using the contested mark is offered for sale in the name of “RUBIK Pi” on their website.

Considering that the Cited marks are famous worldwide as an indicator of the claimant’s 3D puzzle cubes, consumers would mistakenly recognize the commercial source of the goods and services in question as being from the claimant or other economically linked undertakings at the sight of the contested mark.

JPO decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted the remarkable degree of recognition and popularity of the Cited mark Nos. 3, 5, and 6 as source indicators of the claimant’s business based on the evidence submitted by the claimant. However, the Board questioned whether the other Cited marks, which mainly consist of the term “RUBIK,” have also become famous for identifying the claimant’s source.

Regarding the contested mark, the Board found that its overall configuration would not create the sound of “RUBIK” or “RUBIK Pi.” Instead, the contested mark gives rise to the sound of “RUBi Pi,” but has no clear meaning.

Even if the Cited mark 3 “RUBIK CUBE” has become famous, relevant consumers are unlikely to associate the goods and services in question bearing the contested mark with the Cited marks due to the marks’ low degree of similarity. Therefore, the Board held that the contested mark should not be vulnerable to cancellation based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

JPO Status Report 2026

Posted on

According to the “JPO Status Report 2026” released on March 23, 2026, by the Japan Patent Office (JPO), a total of 168,114 trademark applications were filed in 2025. This number increased 5.8% compared to the previous year, when the number of applications amounted to 158,792.

LG H&H Co., Ltd., a South Korean consumer products supplier, was ranked the top foreign registrant (176 registrations). JYP Entertainment Corporation, a South Korean multinational entertainment and record label conglomerate, was ranked second (74 registrations) in 2025, a drastic increase from the previous year, when it was ranked at 145th.

Requests for accelerated examination increased to 8,716 by 7.1% in 2025, which enables applicants to obtain trademark registration within 2 months.

For context, the average total time for the entire trademark process at the JPO, from application filing to registration, is 7.8 months, which is 0.5 months longer than the previous year.

You can access and download the full text of “JPO Status Report 2026” from here.

JPO found BISOU dissimilar to its mirrored mark

Posted on

In an appeal disputing the similarity between the word BISOU and its mirrored mark, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the examiner’s rejection and found both marks dissimilar.
[Appeal case no. 2025-18518, decided on March 2, 2026]

TM App no. 2024-86220

The disputed mark was filed by a Japanese individual for use on cosmetics in Class 3 with the JPO on August 8, 2024. It appears to be a word consisting of five letters, “UOSIB,” written in bold font, as shown below. You will immediately notice that the third and fifth letters, “S” and “B,” are flipped.

Rejection by the examiner

The JPO examiner raised her objection based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing TM Reg no. 6648235 “BISOU” in Class 3 owned by LOOP Inc.

She had an opinion that relevant consumers would consider the disputed mark as a mirrored spelling of the term “BISOU.” From this viewpoint, the two marks are visually similar. Since both marks create the same meaning and sound of ‘kiss’ in French, consumers are likely to confuse the commercial origin of goods bearing the disputed mark with those bearing the cited mark.

https://yukitakeshima.com/

The applicant filed an appeal against the examiner’s rejection on November 20, 2025, and argued dissimilarity of the marks. Simultaneously, the applicant requested an accelerated appeal trial.

JPO Appeal Board decision

On March 2, 2026, the JPO Appeal Board held that the examiner erred in finding the disputed mark and thus erroneously applied Article 4(1)(xi) by stating that:

It makes sense that relevant consumers would understand that the disputed mark starts with “UO,” followed by “S” in mirrored spelling, then “I,” and ends with “B” in mirrored spelling. They would recognize it as a stylized word mark containing some mirrored spellings. Based on this, the disputed mark does not give rise to any meaning and sound. Therefore, even if the goods covered by the disputed mark are deemed identical to those covered by the cited mark, the examiner’s rejection should be annulled due to the examiner’s inappropriate findings regarding the disputed mark.