<?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>NYFEA &#8211; MARKS IP LAW FIRM</title>
	<atom:link href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/tag/nyfea/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>Sat, 03 Sep 2022 03:41:58 +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>NIVEA vs NYFEA</title>
		<link>https://marks-iplaw.jp/nivea-vs-nyfea/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Masaki MIKAMI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Aug 2022 03:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[2022]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alphabetical word]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 4(1)(xi)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 4(1)(xv)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Famous mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Katakana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Similarity of mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Registration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beiersdorf AG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JAPAN PATENT OFFICE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan Trademark Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NIVEA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NYFEA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarity of mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skincare cream]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark opposition]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marks-iplaw.jp/?p=3942</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[On August 2, 2022, the JPO Opposition Board found “NYFEA” is dissimilar to “NIVEA” and unlikely to cause confu <a class="more-link" href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/nivea-vs-nyfea/">Read More ...</a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>On August 2, 2022, the JPO Opposition Board found “NYFEA” is dissimilar to “NIVEA” and unlikely to cause confusion with international skin care major Beiersdorf AG even when used on goods in class 3 including skin-care cream.</p>



<p class="has-text-align-right">[Opposition case no. 2021-900350]



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-background has-vivid-cyan-blue-background-color has-vivid-cyan-blue-color is-style-wide"/>



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



<p>The opposed mark, consisting of a stylized word “NYFEA” (see below), was filed by a Chinese company, Shenzhen VKK Technology Co., Ltd for use on various goods in classes 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 21 with the JPO on July 2, 2020.</p>



<p>The application designates cakes of toilet soap, cleansing milk for cosmetic purposes, detergents, beauty masks, nail varnish, dentifrices, perfume, and incense in class 3.</p>



<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" width="405" height="200" src="http://www.marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/NYFEA.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-3943" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/NYFEA.jpg 405w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/NYFEA-300x148.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 405px) 100vw, 405px" /></figure></div>



<p>The JPO admitted registration of the NYFEA mark on June 15, 2021, and published for post-grant opposition on July 20, 2021.</p>



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



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Opposition by Beiersdorf AG</strong></h2>



<p>The German cosmetics giant, <a href="https://www.beiersdorf.com/">Beiersdorf AG</a> filed an opposition against the NYFEA mark on September 21, 2021, and argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of <strong>Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law</strong> due to a conflict or likelihood of confusion with the world’s largest skincare brand “NIVEA”.</p>



<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-full is-resized"><img decoding="async" src="http://www.marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/NIVEA-logo.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-3944" width="386" height="167" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/NIVEA-logo.jpg 553w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/NIVEA-logo-300x130.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 386px) 100vw, 386px" /></figure></div>



<p>Beiersdorf alleged the NIVEA mark has been substantially used on skin-care creams in Japan since 1968. By virtue of effective advertising, sales promotion, and marketing for long years, NIVEA has acquired a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity among relevant consumers in Japan. As matter of fact, the mark “NIVEA” written in Japanese Katakana character is included in the famous trademark database managed by the JPO.</p>



<p>In view of the close resemblance between NIVEA and NYFEA, and the famousness of NIVEA, relevant consumers would confuse the source of the goods in class 3 bearing the opposed mark with the opponent.</p>



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



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



<p>To my surprise, the JPO negated the famousness of the NIVEA mark by stating “the opponent failed to produce sales amount, market share, and materials of promotional advertising in our jurisdiction at all. A mere allegation that the opponent promoted skin-care creams bearing the NIVEA mark for over five decades is insufficient to find a remarkable degree of the reputation of the opponent’s mark in Japan. Besides, the Board held a fact that the mark “NIVEA” written in Japanese Katakana character is included in famous trademark database would not affect the above finding. Being that the opponent did not prove a high degree of reputation and popularity of “NIVEA” at the time of filing and registration of the opposed mark with evidence, the Board had no reason to believe the opponent mark remains famous as a source indicator of skin-care goods by Beiersdorf AG.</p>



<p>In the assessment of similarity, the Board found both marks are distinguishable in appearance because of differences in the second and third letters, “YE” and “IV” among five letters in total. Likewise, the difference in the second sound would give rise to a distinctive impression in view of a few phonetic compositions of three sounds in total. Both marks are incomparable to the concept.</p>



<p>Based on the foregoing, the Opposition Board found no reasonable ground to cancel the opposed mark in contravention of <strong>Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) </strong>and decided to dismiss the opposition entirely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
