The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition against a device mark featuring a stylized lightning bolt surrounded by two circular arcs, finding it dissimilar to an earlier composite mark featuring the wording “The FLASH” and a lightning-bolt device cited by DC Comics. The JPO also found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the cited mark had become well known or famous in Japan.
[Opposition Case No. 2025-900260, decided on July 22, 2026]
Contested Mark
SPECIAL HEROES Inc., LTD. filed a trademark application for a device mark that consists of a stylized lightning-bolt design surrounded by two circular arcs (see below) in connection with apparel, sports shoes, sportswear in Class 25 and sports equipment in Class 28 with the JPO on February 18, 2025 [TM App. No. 2025-22711].
The application proceeded to registration without an office action being issued. The mark was registered on October 21, 2025, and published for a two-month post-registration opposition period on October 29, 2025.
Opposition by DC Comics
DC Comics, one of the largest and oldest American comic-book publishers, filed an opposition against the contested mark on November 28, 2025, arguing that the registration should be cancelled under Articles 4(1)(xi) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japanese Trademark Law.
The opponent cited TM Reg. No. 6701619 for a composite mark that consists of the stylized term “The FLASH” and a thin-lined lightning-bolt device with two bends surrounded by a circular arc (see below), registered in Class 25 and other classes.
The opponent argued that, in light of the high level of recognition of the American comic “The FLASH” and the close resemblance between the contested mark and the figurative element of the cited mark, relevant consumers would be likely to confuse the source of the goods bearing the contested mark with those of the opponent.
JPO Decision
1. Fame Must Be Established with Concrete Market Evidence
The opponent submitted evidence showing that “The Flash” has been used since 1940 as the title of an American comic book and as the name of its character. The character is also associated with a distinctive emblem combining a circular design and a lightning bolt.
The evidence further indicated that comic books, merchandise such as figures, DVDs, and other works featuring the character have been available in Japan. There was also evidence of a pop-up shop in Kanagawa Prefecture in 2017 and an animated film featuring the character.
Nevertheless, the JPO found this evidence insufficient to establish that the cited mark was well known or famous in Japan.
In particular, the evidence did not sufficiently establish:
- when the relevant goods or services were first marketed in Japan;
- sales volumes or market share;
- the scale of advertising and promotional activities; or
- other concrete evidence demonstrating the extent of recognition among Japanese traders and consumers.
2. Assessment of Similarity
Although both marks shared the basic concept of combining a lightning-bolt design with a circular arc, the JPO found significant differences in:
- the number of bends in the lightning bolt;
- the thickness of the lines;
- the number of circular arcs;
- the thickness of the arcs; and
- whether the lightning bolt and circular arc were connected.
These differences were considered sufficient to make the two figurative elements clearly distinguishable in appearance.
The JPO also found that the contested mark had no specific pronunciation or conceptual meaning because the lightning-bolt design did not convey a sufficiently definite meaning. By contrast, the cited mark gives rise to the pronunciations “THE FLASH” or “FLASH” and the concept of a “flash” or “sudden burst of light.”
Accordingly, the JPO found that the marks were distinguishable in appearance, pronunciation, and meaning, and that their degree of similarity was low.
3. No Likelihood of Confusion
Since the opponent had failed to establish that the cited mark was sufficiently well known or famous in Japan at the filing date of the contested mark, and the degree of similarity between the marks was low, the JPO concluded that consumers would not associate the contested mark with the cited mark or mistakenly believe that the goods originated from the opponent or an economically or organizationally related entity.
The opposition was therefore dismissed, as the contested mark did not fall under Article 4(1)(xi) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japanese Trademark Law.