<?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>TWINGO &#8211; MARKS IP LAW FIRM</title>
	<atom:link href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/tag/twingo/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>Mon, 03 Jan 2022 09:12:30 +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>Toyota vs. Renault: Battle of the Brands</title>
		<link>https://marks-iplaw.jp/toyota-vs-renault/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Masaki MIKAMI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2018 06:51:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[2018]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 4(1)(xi)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 4(1)(xv)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Famous mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Similarity of mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RENAULT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TOYOTA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TWINGO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WIGO]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marks-iplaw.jp/?p=1458</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In a trademark opposition between Toyota Motor Corporation (JAPAN) and Renault SAS (FRANCE), the Opposition Bo <a class="more-link" href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/toyota-vs-renault/">Read More ...</a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a trademark opposition between Toyota Motor Corporation (JAPAN) and Renault SAS (FRANCE), the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the opposition against trademark registration no. 5932825 for word mark “WIGO”.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h3><strong>WIGO vs. TWINGO</strong></h3>
<p>Renault opposed to register the word mark “WIGO” designating automobiles in class 12 by Toyota based on Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) of the Trademark Law by citing his senior trademark registration no. 2710075 for Renault’s car brand “TWINGO”.</p>
<p>TOYOTA <strong>WIGO</strong> is mini hatchback from Toyota.</p>
<p><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1460" src="http://www.marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/toyota-wigo-300x174.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="174" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/toyota-wigo-300x174.jpg 300w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/toyota-wigo-600x348.jpg 600w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/toyota-wigo.jpg 734w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /></p>
<p>RENAULT<strong> TWINGO</strong> is small city car from Renault.</p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1459" src="http://www.marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/renault-twingo-300x170.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="170" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/renault-twingo-300x170.jpg 300w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/renault-twingo-768x435.jpg 768w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/renault-twingo-600x340.jpg 600w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/renault-twingo.jpg 896w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /></p>
<h3><strong>Assessment of trademark similarity</strong></h3>
<p><strong>Article 4(1)(xi)</strong> is a provision to refrain from registering a junior mark which is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.</p>
<p>In assessing trademark similarity under Article 4(1)(xi), the Board considered opposed mark “WIGO” is deemed a coined word since it does not give rise to any specific meaning as well as “TWINGO”. Besides, both marks are evidently distinguishable in appearance and pronunciation. If so, the Board found that it is groundless to conclude “WIGO” is similar to “TWINGO” from visual, phonetic and conceptual aspect.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h3><strong>Likelihood of confusion</strong></h3>
<p><strong>Article 4(1)(xv)</strong> provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entity’s well-known goods or services, to the benefit of brand owner and users’ benefits.<br />
Theoretically, Article 4(1)(xv) is applicable to the case where a mark in question is deemed dissimilar to well-known brand, but is still likely to cause confusion because of a high degree of popularity and reputation of the brand.</p>
<p>The Board concluded it remains unclear whether Renault TWINGO has become famous in automobiles from totality of the circumstances and evidence.<br />
Provided that TWINGO does not obtain remarkable reputation in relation to automobiles as a source indicator of Renault car, WIGO is unlikely to cause confusion with Renault TWINGO because both marks are considerably dissimilar.</p>
[Opposition case no. 2017-900193]
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
