<?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>YONEX &#8211; MARKS IP LAW FIRM</title>
	<atom:link href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/tag/yonex/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>Thu, 01 Jan 2026 06:53:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>ja</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Top 10 Trademark News in Japan, 2025</title>
		<link>https://marks-iplaw.jp/top-10-2025/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Masaki MIKAMI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2025 10:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[2025]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Color mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Famous mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invalidation trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP High Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New type of trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-use cancellation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Similarity of mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Three dimensional mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tokyo District Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[color mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hermes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JAPAN PATENT OFFICE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan Trademark Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kawasaki]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MONSTER ENERGY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MONSTER SRTIKE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[POCKY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SONIMART]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SONY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[STARBOSS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Starbucks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tommy Hilfiger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TWILLY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UNIQLO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YONEX]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://marks-iplaw.jp/?p=5270</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As the year 2025 comes to an end, it is a good time to share the top 10 trademark news in Japan by counting th <a class="more-link" href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/top-10-2025/">Read More ...</a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>As the year 2025 comes to an end, it is a good time to share the top 10 trademark news in Japan by counting the total number of likes on the Linkedin “Like” Button.</p>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-luminous-vivid-amber-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-luminous-vivid-amber-background-color has-background is-style-wide"/>



<p><strong>1: JPO Grants TM Registration for 3D Shape of the Popular Pocky Cookie</strong></p>



<p>The Japan Patent Office (JPO) granted trademark registration for the three-dimensional (3D) shape of Ezaki Glico’s iconic “Pocky” cookie, recognizing that the shape had acquired distinctiveness in relation to chocolate confections in Class 30 [TM Reg. No. 6951539].</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-marks-ip-law-firm wp-block-embed-marks-ip-law-firm"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="dTrPAVMICK"><a href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/pocky-3d-mark/">JPO Grants TM Registration for 3D Shape of the Popular Pocky Cookie</a></blockquote><iframe class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  title="&#8220;JPO Grants TM Registration for 3D Shape of the Popular Pocky Cookie&#8221; &#8212; MARKS IP LAW FIRM" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/pocky-3d-mark/embed/#?secret=6jbjgrSUOl#?secret=dTrPAVMICK" data-secret="dTrPAVMICK" width="600" height="338" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
</div></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-luminous-vivid-amber-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-luminous-vivid-amber-background-color has-background is-style-dots"/>



<p><strong>2: UNIQLO Lost in Trademark Opposition against UNIPRO</strong></p>



<p>UNIQLO lost in its attempt to oppose TM Reg no. 6746724 for the mark “UNIPRO” in class 28 due to dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion with a world-famous Japanese clothing brand “UNIQLO”.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-marks-ip-law-firm wp-block-embed-marks-ip-law-firm"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="f9FYXpa7td"><a href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/uniqlo-vs-unipro/">UNIQLO Lost in Trademark Opposition against UNIPRO</a></blockquote><iframe class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  title="&#8220;UNIQLO Lost in Trademark Opposition against UNIPRO&#8221; &#8212; MARKS IP LAW FIRM" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/uniqlo-vs-unipro/embed/#?secret=mU6KN7FJen#?secret=f9FYXpa7td" data-secret="f9FYXpa7td" width="600" height="338" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
</div></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-luminous-vivid-amber-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-luminous-vivid-amber-background-color has-background is-style-dots"/>



<p><strong>3: STARBUCKS Unsuccessful Invalidation Action against Trademark “STARBOSS”</strong></p>



<p>The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an invalidation action claimed by Starbucks Inc. against TM Reg no. 6595964 for wordmark “STARBOSS” in class 32 due to dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with the world’s largest coffee chain “STARBUCKS”.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-marks-ip-law-firm wp-block-embed-marks-ip-law-firm"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="JNO9DNhiZZ"><a href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/starbucks-vs-starboss/">STARBUCKS Unsuccessful Invalidation Action against Trademark “STARBOSS”</a></blockquote><iframe class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  title="&#8220;STARBUCKS Unsuccessful Invalidation Action against Trademark “STARBOSS”&#8221; &#8212; MARKS IP LAW FIRM" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/starbucks-vs-starboss/embed/#?secret=BNeoWMkVmJ#?secret=JNO9DNhiZZ" data-secret="JNO9DNhiZZ" width="600" height="338" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
</div></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-luminous-vivid-amber-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-luminous-vivid-amber-background-color has-background is-style-dots"/>



<p><strong>4: IP High Court ruling: STARBUCKS vs STARBOSS</strong></p>



<p>The Japan IP High Court did not side with Starbucks Corporation in a trademark dispute between “STARBUCKS” and “STARBOSS”, and affirmed the JPO decision that found “STARBOSS” dissimilar to, and less likelihood of confusion with “STARBUCKS when used on beverages.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-marks-ip-law-firm wp-block-embed-marks-ip-law-firm"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="xU3JZOzcZT"><a href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/court-decision-starbucks-vs-starboss/">IP High Court ruling: STARBUCKS vs STARBOSS</a></blockquote><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  title="&#8220;IP High Court ruling: STARBUCKS vs STARBOSS&#8221; &#8212; MARKS IP LAW FIRM" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/court-decision-starbucks-vs-starboss/embed/#?secret=aDPwqlz8D7#?secret=xU3JZOzcZT" data-secret="xU3JZOzcZT" width="600" height="338" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
</div></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-luminous-vivid-amber-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-luminous-vivid-amber-background-color has-background is-style-dots"/>



<p><strong>5: Trademark dispute: SONY vs SONIMART</strong></p>



<p>The Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with SONY in a trademark invalidation action against TM Reg no. 6162062 for word mark “SONIMARK” in classes 35 and 42 by finding a likelihood of confusion with famous mark “SONY”.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-marks-ip-law-firm wp-block-embed-marks-ip-law-firm"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="117ZaBz9DV"><a href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/sony-vs-sonimart/">Trademark dispute: SONY vs SONIMART</a></blockquote><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  title="&#8220;Trademark dispute: SONY vs SONIMART&#8221; &#8212; MARKS IP LAW FIRM" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/sony-vs-sonimart/embed/#?secret=2VMjClfu0Z#?secret=117ZaBz9DV" data-secret="117ZaBz9DV" width="600" height="338" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
</div></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-luminous-vivid-amber-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-luminous-vivid-amber-background-color has-background is-style-dots"/>



<p><strong>6: MONSTER STRIKE vs MONSTER ENERGY</strong></p>



<p>The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not decide in favour of Monster Energy Company in its opposition to Defensive Mark Reg. No. 5673517 for the word mark “MONSTER STRIKE” in Classes 29, 30, and 32.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-marks-ip-law-firm wp-block-embed-marks-ip-law-firm"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="sUnE9t9qUB"><a href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/monster-strike-vs-monster-energy/">MONSTER STRIKE vs MONSTER ENERGY</a></blockquote><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  title="&#8220;MONSTER STRIKE vs MONSTER ENERGY&#8221; &#8212; MARKS IP LAW FIRM" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/monster-strike-vs-monster-energy/embed/#?secret=0m9AoK5nww#?secret=sUnE9t9qUB" data-secret="sUnE9t9qUB" width="600" height="338" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
</div></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-luminous-vivid-amber-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-luminous-vivid-amber-background-color has-background is-style-dots"/>



<p><strong>7: YONEX Scored Win in Registering Color mark</strong></p>



<p>On October 21, 2025, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) granted registration of a color mark that consists of blue and green colors, filed by Yonex Co., Ltd. to use on badminton shuttlecocks by finding acquired distinctiveness of the color combination.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-marks-ip-law-firm wp-block-embed-marks-ip-law-firm"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="sCDTF8mhBe"><a href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/yonex-color-mark/">YONEX Scored Win in Registering Color mark</a></blockquote><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  title="&#8220;YONEX Scored Win in Registering Color mark&#8221; &#8212; MARKS IP LAW FIRM" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/yonex-color-mark/embed/#?secret=rrK33reu7w#?secret=sCDTF8mhBe" data-secret="sCDTF8mhBe" width="600" height="338" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
</div></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-luminous-vivid-amber-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-luminous-vivid-amber-background-color has-background is-style-dots"/>



<p><strong>8: HERMES Defeated with Trademark Opposition against KIMONO TWILLY</strong></p>



<p>The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Hermes International against TM Reg no. 6753650 for the word mark “KIMONO TWILLY” in Class 18, claiming a likelihood of confusion with the Hermes scarves “TWILLY”.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-marks-ip-law-firm wp-block-embed-marks-ip-law-firm"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="v5AOOOfPxn"><a href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/hermes-twilly/">HERMES Defeated with Trademark Opposition against KIMONO TWILLY</a></blockquote><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  title="&#8220;HERMES Defeated with Trademark Opposition against KIMONO TWILLY&#8221; &#8212; MARKS IP LAW FIRM" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/hermes-twilly/embed/#?secret=KQqSTpi7yX#?secret=v5AOOOfPxn" data-secret="v5AOOOfPxn" width="600" height="338" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
</div></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-luminous-vivid-amber-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-luminous-vivid-amber-background-color has-background is-style-dots"/>



<p><strong>9: JPO Said No to Register Kawasaki Green Color Mark</strong></p>



<p>On March 19, 2025, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) finally decided to reject a color mark application filed a decade ago by Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., which sought to register a green color used on the world-famous Kawasaki motorcycles.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-marks-ip-law-firm wp-block-embed-marks-ip-law-firm"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="4yZZxgflKR"><a href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/kawasaki-green-color-mark/">JPO Said No to Register Kawasaki Green Color Mark</a></blockquote><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  title="&#8220;JPO Said No to Register Kawasaki Green Color Mark&#8221; &#8212; MARKS IP LAW FIRM" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/kawasaki-green-color-mark/embed/#?secret=7Asx0kgg62#?secret=4yZZxgflKR" data-secret="4yZZxgflKR" width="600" height="338" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
</div></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-luminous-vivid-amber-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-luminous-vivid-amber-background-color has-background is-style-dots"/>



<p><strong>10: TOMMY HILFIGER vs TOMTOMMY</strong></p>



<p>The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B.V. in an opposition against TM Reg no. 6604265 “TOMTOMMY” due to dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion with “TOMMY” and “TOMMY HILFIGER”.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-marks-ip-law-firm wp-block-embed-marks-ip-law-firm"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="6KtOYXUI6H"><a href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/tommy-hilfiger-vs-tomtommy/">TOMMY HILFIGER vs TOMTOMMY</a></blockquote><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  title="&#8220;TOMMY HILFIGER vs TOMTOMMY&#8221; &#8212; MARKS IP LAW FIRM" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/tommy-hilfiger-vs-tomtommy/embed/#?secret=VzvvPcQMvj#?secret=6KtOYXUI6H" data-secret="6KtOYXUI6H" width="600" height="338" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
</div></figure>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>YONEX Scored Win in Registering Color mark</title>
		<link>https://marks-iplaw.jp/yonex-color-mark/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Masaki MIKAMI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2025 06:52:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[2025]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Acquired distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 3(1)(iii)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 3(2)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Color mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colormark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Famous mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inherent distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New type of trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[badminton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[color combination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[color mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inherent distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JAPAN PATENT OFFICE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan Trademark Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secondary meaning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shuttlecock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YONEX]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://marks-iplaw.jp/?p=5209</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[On October 21, 2025, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) granted registration of a color mark that consists of blue  <a class="more-link" href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/yonex-color-mark/">Read More ...</a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>On October 21, 2025, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) granted registration of a color mark that consists of blue and green colors, filed by Yonex Co., Ltd. to use on badminton shuttlecocks by finding acquired distinctiveness of the color combination. <br>[Appeal case no. 2022-17481]



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



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>YONEX Color Mark</strong></h2>



<p>Yonex Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application with the Japan Patent Office on September 6, 2019, for a mark that consists of a combination of blue (Pantone 2935C) and green (Pantone 355C) (color ratio 50%:50%), designating “sports equipment; badminton equipment” and other goods in Class 28 [TM App no. 2019-118815].</p>


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-full is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="508" height="504" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-2-colors.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-5210" style="width:329px;height:auto" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-2-colors.jpg 508w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-2-colors-300x298.jpg 300w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-2-colors-150x150.jpg 150w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-2-colors-75x75.jpg 75w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-2-colors-100x100.jpg 100w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-2-colors-40x40.jpg 40w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 508px) 100vw, 508px" /></figure>
</div>


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



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Rejection by JPO examiner</strong></h2>



<p>On July 27, 2022, the JPO examiner rejected the mark under A<strong>rticle 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law</strong>, due to a lack of inherent distinctive character. Furthermore, while acknowledging that a certain number of traders and consumers recognize the color combination perse as an indicator of the applicant&#8217;s goods in view of the applicant&#8217;s extensive use of the mark on badminton shuttlecocks for years, and its leading market share, the examiner had an opinion that a significant number of people do not recognize it as a source indicator to distinguish from others. Accordingly, the examiner concluded that the mark does not satisfy the requirements to apply <strong>Article 3(2) </strong>since the applicant failed to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness of the mark in relation to the goods in question.</p>


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-full is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="720" height="720" src="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-badminton-shuttlecock.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-5211" style="width:408px;height:auto" srcset="https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-badminton-shuttlecock.jpg 720w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-badminton-shuttlecock-300x300.jpg 300w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-badminton-shuttlecock-150x150.jpg 150w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-badminton-shuttlecock-75x75.jpg 75w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-badminton-shuttlecock-200x200.jpg 200w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-badminton-shuttlecock-100x100.jpg 100w, https://marks-iplaw.jp/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/YONEX-badminton-shuttlecock-40x40.jpg 40w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 720px) 100vw, 720px" /></figure>
</div>


<p>Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on November 1, 2022, and then restricted the designated goods to “Shuttlecocks” in Class 28.</p>



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



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



<p>The JPO Appeal Board observed that the evidence submitted by the applicant would sufficiently demonstrate that the color combination has played a role in identifying the specific source of Shuttlecocks by taking into account the following facts.</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>The mark has been used continuously for over 48 years, since at least 1976, on Yonex Badminton shuttlecocks. The color combination appears on the applicant&#8217;s website, in product catalogs, internet articles, magazines, newspapers, and television programs. The shuttlecocks bearing the mark have been officially used at numerous international badminton tournaments, including the Olympic Games and World Championships.</li>



<li>Yonex shuttlecocks ranked first in the domestic market for 11 consecutive years from 2009 to 2019, with a market share of approximately 70% to 80% during that period.</li>



<li>According to survey results targeting 1,053 men and women aged 15 to 59 who currently play or have played badminton or tennis, 57.87% of the respondents who have played both tennis (including soft tennis) and badminton could associate the color combination with the applicant in the answer to an open or closed (multiple choice) question. For those who have experienced badminton, but not tennis, 56.59% could associate it with the applicant in either question.</li>
</ol>



<p>Based on the foregoing, the Board found that the examiner erred in applying Article 3(2), and thus decided to register the color combination as a trademark.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
