The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) seeking the cancellation of Trademark Reg. No. 6571632 for a composite mark containing the word “OLYMPIA” in Class 44.
[Opposition case no. 2022-900358, decided on August 27, 2026]
Contested mark
The contested mark consists of three elements arranged vertically as shown below in connection with the services of “Providing massage, chiropractic, acupuncture, moxibustion, judo seifuku (bone setting), aromatherapy, and nutritional guidance” in Class 44.
- Top: A design depicting a droplet shape wrapped from below by two arc-shaped branches with leaves facing each other.
- Middle: The word “OLYMPIA” represented in bold, prominent lettering (with a larger letter “O”).
- Bottom: The phrase “OLYMPIA is the concierge of your body.” in smaller, thin text.
The mark was filed by a Japanese individual with the JPO on March 24, 2022. By virtue of the accelerated examination requested by the applicant, the mark was granted registration in less than three months, on June 14, 2022. [TM Reg no. 6571632]
IOC’s Opposition
The opponent, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), filed an opposition on August 22, 2022, arguing that the registration should be canceled under Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japanese Trademark Law, which prohibits registration of marks likely to cause confusion with another person’s well-known goods or services.
The IOC relied on IR no. 1128501 for its well-known mark “OLYMPIC” (and related marks/symbols), claiming that:
- The prefix “OLYMPI-” is identical.
- The opponent uses various terms starting with “OLYMPI-” such as “OLYMPIAN” or “OLYMPISM.”
- The leaf-branch design in the contested mark evokes an association with the Olympic Games (e.g., laurel crowns).
- Due to the immense fame of the “OLYMPIC” mark, relevant consumers in Japan would associate the contested mark with the IOC or assume a business or economic connection between the parties.
JPO Decision
The JPO Opposition Board dismissed the IOC’s arguments and maintained the registration based on the following grounds:
1. Famousness of the Opponent’s Mark
The Board recognized that the cited mark “OLYMPIC” is widely famous among Japanese consumers as an indicator of the Olympic Games hosted by the IOC.
2. Degree of Similarity Between the Marks
- Dominant Portion: The Board held that the middle text “OLYMPIA” serves as the dominant, distinctive feature of the contested mark because the top logo design generates no specific conceptual meaning and the bottom sentence (“OLYMPIA is the concierge of your body.”) is printed in extremely small font and lacks distinctive dominance.
- Visual: Comparing “OLYMPIA” and “OLYMPIC,” both consist of 7 letters, sharing the first 6 letters in upper-case letters. Although the ending letters (“A” vs. “C”) differ, the visual impression remains similar.
- Aural: “OLYMPIA” (5 syllables: O-ri-n-pi-a) and “OLYMPIC” (6 syllables: O-ri-n-pi-k-ku) share the first 4 syllables (O-ri-n-pi), but the endings (-a vs. -k-ku) are clearly distinguishable by ear.
- Conceptual:
- “OLYMPIA” evokes the concept of Olympia, the ancient Greek plain and birthplace of the ancient Olympic Games.
- “OLYMPIC” evokes the modern Olympic Games.
- Because “OLYMPIA” is a recognized geographic name/dictionary word, the two marks convey distinct concepts and do not cause conceptual confusion.
- Overall: Although visually similar to some degree, the low similarity in sound and distinctness in concept mean the overall degree of similarity between the marks is low.
3. Connection Between Services and Likelihood of Confusion
- Service Relationship: The contested services in Class 44 (massage, chiropractic, acupuncture, nutritional guidance, etc.) differ significantly in nature, purpose, channels of trade, and business categories from the IOC’s core services (planning and managing sports events). The connection between the respective services is very low.
- No False Association: The Board rejected the IOC’s claim that the leaf/droplet design in the contested mark misleads consumers into believing there is an official association with the Olympic Games, as there was no evidence showing that this specific design is widely used by or associated with the Olympic Games.
- Conclusion: Given the low similarity between the marks and the low relationship between the services, relevant consumers in Japan are unlikely to associate “OLYMPIA” with “OLYMPIC” or assume any organizational or economic connection to the IOC.
Accordingly, the JPO concluded that the contested mark does not fall under Article 4(1)(xv) and upheld the registration.