JPO decided to invalidate the word mark “Bord’or” in relation to wines

In a decision to the invalidation trial jointly claimed by INSTITUT NATIONAL DE L’ORIGINE ET DE LA QUALITE and CONSEIL INTERPROFESSIONNEL DU VIN DE BORDEAUX, the Invalidation Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) ordered to invalidate TM registration no. 5737079 for a word mark “Bord’or” in script fonts (see below) in violation of Article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law.
[Invalidation case no. 2016-890075]

TM Registration no. 5737079

Mark in dispute (see above), owned by a Japanese legal entity, was filed on October 9, 2014 by designating various types of alcoholic beverages including wines in class 33. After an initial application, applicant requested the JPO to expedite substantive examination. In accordance with the request, JPO examiner put a priority on the mark and admitted to grant registration in three months subsequent to substantive examination.

Accelerated Examination

JPO applies the accelerated examination system to trademark application on the condition that the application meets the following condition.

  1. Applicant/licensee uses or will use applied mark on one of designated goods/services at least, and there exists an urgency to registration, e.g. unauthorized use by third parties, basic application to international registration,
  2. All designated goods/services are actually or shortly used by applicant/licensee, or
  3. Applicant/licensee uses or will use applied mark on one of designated goods/services at least, and all the goods/services are designated in accordance with a standard description based on Examination Guidelines for Similar Goods and Services.

Accelerated examination system enables applicant to obtain examination results in less than two months on average, which is four months shorter than regular examination.

Claimants’ allegation

Claimants argued disputed mark gives rise to the same pronunciation with BORDEAUX, “ bɔːˈdəʊ”. If so, relevant consumers shall conceive BORDEAUX, a world-famous geographical name known for an origin of French wine. Besides, according to the document produced by applicant to demonstrate actual use of disputed mark on designated goods in requesting accelerated examination, it evidently reveals intention to free-ride or dilute fame of prestigious wine.
Thus, if disputed mark is used on wines originated from areas other than BORDEAUX, it severely does harm to fame and aura of prestigious wine constituted under the strict control of domicile of origin. Then, inevitably it causes disorder to a world of global commerce in a manner inconsistent with international fidelity.

To bolster the allegation, claimants cited precedent trademark decisions involving famous French wine, e.g. ROMANEE-CONTI, BEAUJOLAIS NOUVEAU, CHABLIS. Inter alia, IP High Court ruled a word mark “CHAMPAGNE TOWER” invalid in relation to “CHAMPAGNE” based on Article 4(1)(vii).

Article 4(1)(vii) of the Japan Trademark Law

Article 4(1)(vii) prohibits any mark likely to offend public order and morals from registering.

Trademark Examination Guidelines sets forth criteria for the article and samples.

  1. Trademarks that are “likely to cause damage to public order or morality” are, for example, the trademarks that fall under the cases prescribed in (1) to (5) below.

(1) Trademarks which are, in composition per se, characters or figures, signs, three-dimensional shapes or colors or any combination thereof, or sounds that are unethical, obscene, discriminative, outrageous, or unpleasant to people. It is judged whether characters, figures, signs, three-dimensional shapes or colors or any combination thereof, or sounds are unethical, discriminative or unpleasant to people, with consideration given to their historical backgrounds, social impacts, etc. from a comprehensive viewpoint.

(2) Trademarks which do not have the composition per se as prescribed in (1) above but are liable to conflict with the public interests of the society or contravene the generally-accepted sense of morality if used for the designated goods or designated services.

(3) Trademarks with their use prohibited by other laws.

(4) Trademarks liable to dishonor a specific country or its people or trademarks generally considered contrary to the international faith.

(5) Trademarks whose registration is contrary to the order predetermined under the Trademark Act and is utterly unacceptable for lack of social reasonableness in the background to the filing of an application for trademark registration.

 

  1. Examples that fall under this item

(i) Trademarks that contain characters such as “university” and are likely to be mistaken for the name of universities, etc. under the School Education Act.

(ii) Trademarks that contain characters such as “士(shi)” which are likely to mislead that they represent national qualifications.

(iii) Trademarks of the name of a well-known or famous historical personage which are determined to have the risk of taking a free ride on public measures related to that personage and damage the public interests by inhibiting the performance of such measures.

(iv) Trademarks with figures indicated in a manner that may impair the dignity and honor of national flags (including foreign national flags)

(v) A sound mark related to the services of “medical treatment” which causes people to recognize siren sounds generated by ambulances that are well known in Japan.

(vi) A sound mark which causes people to recognize national anthems of Japan and other countries.

Board decision

Board found in favor of claimants that “BORDEAUX” has acquired a high degree of popularity and reputation among Japanese consumers as a source indicator of wines originated from the Bordeaux district. As long as disputed mark gives rise to the same pronunciation with BORDEAUX, it is undeniable that consumers are likely to connect the disputed mark with BORDEAUX wine or its district. If so, disputed mark free-rides or dilutes lure and image of BORDEAUX wine, and adversely affects domicile of origin strictly controlled by French government.
Consequently, Board decided to invalidate Bord’or in violation to Article 4(1)(vii).


Protection of geographical indication

The Japan Trademark Law contains provisions to protect geographical indication.
In principle, a mark merely consisting of geographical name or location is deemed descriptive and falls under Article 3(1)(iii). Even if a mark is combined geographical indication with other distinctive elements, it is subject to Article 4(1)(xvi) since the mark may mislead the quality when used on goods from other areas.
Regarding a mark indicating a place of origin off wine, Article 4(1)(xvii) plays a significant role.

Article 4(1)(xvii)

No trademark shall be registered if the trademark is comprised of a mark indicating a place of origin of wines or spirits of Japan which has been designated by the Commissioner of the Patent Office, or a mark indicating a place of origin of wines or spirits of a member of the World Trade Organization which is prohibited by the said member from being used on wines or spirits not originating from the region of the said member, if such a trademark is used in connection with wines or spirits not originating from the region in Japan or of the said member.

Geographical indications to be protected under the article can be reviewed by accessing http://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/pdf/appendix2.pdf

In this regard, it should be noted that Article 4(1)(xvii) is applicable to any mark containing a term to represent protected GI in itself. In other words, Article 4(1)(xvii) can’t block “Bord’or” since disputed mark does not contain “BORDEAUX” or its transliteration.


Masaki MIKAMI, Attorney at IP law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

Starbucks Trademark Dispute Brewing Over Bull Pulu Tapioca Logo

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) has rejected an opposition from Starbucks to trademark registration no. 5897739 for the green-and white “BULL PULU TAPIOCA” concentric circle logo with a puppy white bull dog in the center.
[Opposition case no. 2017-900048]

BULL PULU TAPIOCA LOGO

Opposed mark (see below) designating goods of tapioca beverages, tapioca fruit juice beverages in class 32 and retail or wholesale services for tapioca beverages, tapioca fruit juice beverages in class 35was applied for registration on May 10, 2016 by a Japanese individual. As a result of substantive examination, JPO granted a registration on October 28, 2016.

OPPOSITION by STARBUCKS

Subsequently, Starbucks Incorporated, a US coffee chain, filed an opposition based on a conflict with famous Starbucks trademarks.

In the opposition, Starbucks alleged violation of Article 4(1)(vii), (xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(vii) prohibits any mark likely to offend public order and morals from registering.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to refrain from registering a junior mark which is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

Article 4(1)(xv) excludes a junior mark which is likely to cause confusion with goods or services belonging to another business entity.

BOARD DECISION

The Opposition Board of JPO admitted a high degree of reputation and popularity to the iconic Starbucks logo among relevant consumers at the time of initial filing and registration of the opposed mark.

In the meantime, the Board found that both marks are dissimilar due to a distinctive difference in literal elements and design depicted in the center. Besides, by taking account of severe dissimilarity of both marks, the Board denied a likelihood of confusion between the marks as well.

To bolster the public disorder allegation, Starbucks revealed the facts that applicant of the opposed mark was a former CEO of J.J. Co., Ltd., a tapioca drink parlor, and Opposed mark has been used on shop signs and cups for drink managed by J.J. Co., Ltd. in fact (see below).

The Board held that such facts are insufficient to conclude Opposed mark may offend public order and morals if registered.

Accordingly, JPO rejected an opposition challenged by Starbucks.


MASAKI MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

How do you pronounce “Q-revo” mark?

In an administrative appeal disputing trademark similarity between TM registration no. 2705284 for word mark “REVO” and a junior trademark represented as below, the Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided that both marks are deemed dissimilar and allowed to register the junior trademark accordingly.
[Appeal case no. 2017-8341]

Disputed mark

Disputed mark (see above) was applied for trademark registration on October 30, 2015 by designating goods of telecommunication machines, electronic machines and others belonging to class 9.

As a result of substantive examination by the JPO, examiner refused the disputed mark by citing a senior TM registration “REVO” based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law to find that the citation has also covered telecommunication machines, electronic machines in the designation which are deemed identical with disputed mark.

Subsequently, the applicant of disputed mark filed an appeal to the case.

TRADEMARK APPEAL

Main issue at the appeal rested on how disputed mark should be pronounced in the assessment of trademark similarity.

In this respect, the Board held that disputed mark gives rise to a sole pronunciation of “kju- riːvo” in view of overall configuration fully consolidated from appearance.

Based on the finding, the Board compared the disputed mark and the citation in the aspect of visual appearance, sound and concept, and concluded, inter alia, both sounds, “kju- riːvo” and “ riːvo”, are distinctively dissimilar.


It has been recognized in Japan that hyphen (-) serves as a separator of words at fore-and-aft position. To see a graphical distinction between the “Q” logo and “revo”, I believe the decision isn’t quite persuasive enough.

Masaki MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

JPO : KAPAPA is unlikely to cause confusion with Kappa

In a recent trademark opposition, Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided the mark “KAPAPA” is unlikely to cause confusion with “Kappa”, one of the world’s largest sport brands founded in 1960s, Italy even when used on sport wears.[Opposition case no. 2017-900115, decisively concluded on August 17, 2017]


Opponent, a Japanese business entity authorized to distribute “Kappa” goods in Japan, filed a trademark opposition against TM registration no. 5912402 for the “KAPAPA” logo mark (see below).

Opposed mark was applied for registration on April 20, 2016 by designating various goods in class 18 and 25, e.g. bags, clothing, sport wears, sport shoes, caps and socks.


Opponent asserted that the opposed mark violates Article 4(1)(xi) and 4(1)(xix) of the Trademark Law by citing senior registrations for the “Kappa” mark.


Based on substantive evidential materials to show the facts the “Kappa” is ranked as 6th sport brand in annual sale and has been promoted in Japan over three decades, the Opposition Board admitted that “Kappa” has acquired a certain degree of popularity and reputation among relevant consumers as a source indicator of workout clothes, gym clothes, athletic wear and soccer wear.

In the meantime, the Board denied similarity between “KAPAPA” and “Kappa” by taking into consideration a distinctive gap in sound and meaning of respective mark as a whole.

As a conclusion, the opposition is groundless since it shall be unlikely that relevant consumers with an ordinary care would confuse or associate “KAPAPA” wears with “Kappa” and any entity systematically or economically connected with opponent, the Board held.

 

MASAKI MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

ENRICO COVERI failed to remove “COVERI” from trademark registration

The Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) held in an opposition filed by Enrico Coveri Società a Responsabilità Limitata (Opponent) that trademark registration no. 5874843 for a word mark “COVERI” (Opposed mark) shall remain as valid as ever and dismissed claims in the opposition entirely.
[Opposition case no. 2016-900368]


Opposed mark (see below) was applied for registration on November 27, 2015 by designating various kinds of goods in class 25 including apparels and shoes, and published for registration on September 20, 2016without any office action from the JPO examiner.


Opponent claimed that the opposed mark “COVERI” shall be cancelled on the basis of Article 4(1)(vii), (viii), (x), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing senior trademark registrations for word mark “ENRICO COVERI”, a name of the late Italian fashion designer, in class 18, 24 and 25.


In the opposition decision, the Board concluded that “ENRICO COVERI” and “COVERI” are both dissimilar in appearance, pronunciation and concept.

Besides, the Board did not admit a high degree of popularity and recognition to “ENRICO COVERI” among relevant public in Japan because of insufficient evidence to demonstrate amount of sales, number of stores and expenditure for promotion and advertisement (Opponent has just produced some photographs or articles appeared in fashion magazines).

Based on the fact finding, the Board concluded that opposed mark was not filed in a malicious intent to do harm to the designer’s fame, and “COVERI” shall not be deemed as an abbreviation of “ENRICO COVERI”. Therefore, there finds less likelihood of confusion between “COVERI” and “ENRICO COVERI” even if both marks are used on apparels or shoes.


It is highly advisable to an owner of high-end or luxurious brand, consisting of two or more alphabetical words, to have each word registered as well for the purpose of preventing free-riding and enjoying a broader scope of protection against use by others.

Masaki MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

V&W is unlikely to cause confusion with VW emblem

In a recent trademark opposition involving the circular Volkswagen logo, the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided that famous VW emblem is entirely dissimilar to, or unlikely to cause confusion with, the word mark “V&W” in standard character when used on retail services for automobiles [Opposition Case no. 2017-900009].


Trademark opposition

German car giant Volkswagen AG filed an opposition against TM registration no. 5888513 for word mark “V&W” written in standard character (Opposed mark) on the grounds that Opposed mark violates Article 4(1)(xi), 4(1)(xv) and 8(1) of the Trademark Law based on senior trademark registrations for the VW emblems and a word mark “VW”.
The opposed mark designates retail services or wholesale services for automobiles and various other goods in class 35.

Volkswagen argued Opposed mark gives rise to a pronunciation of “vi: dʌb·l·juː” by omitting “&” since the prevalent symbol representing a word of “AND” is just to connect “V” and “W”, and relevant traders and consumers are prone to omit the symbol in pronouncing the entire mark in light of transactional customs at present. If so, Opposed mark is deemed similar to the VW emblem as well as “VW” in visual, phonetical and conceptual point of view.

Besides, the VW emblem has acquired substantial popularity and reputation as a source indicator of famous automobile maker, Volkswagen. Thus, it is highly likely that relevant traders and consumers confuse the source of retail service for automobiles and its parts using Opposed mark “V&W” with opponent or a business entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent.

 


Board decision

The Board admitted the VW emblem has become famous for a source indicator of opponent by taking into consideration of the facts that opponent’s cars with the VW emblem have been continuously imported to Japan since 1978 at the latest and ranked in the top 3 of new imported automobile registrations for the past three years.

In the meantime, the Board denied high awareness of the word mark “VW” as a source indicator of opponent. A mere definition of VW to indicate the opponent in a dictionary is insufficient since the term is often seen in conjunction with corporation name “Volkswagen” in newspaper, magazines and newsarticle on a website.

In the assessment of trademark similarity, the Board concluded that “V&W” is obviously dissimilar to the VW emblem and “VW” in appearance, pronunciation and meaning. Due to substantial distinction between the marks, relevant traders and consumers are less likely to confuse or associate “V&W” with opponent and any business entity systematically or economically connected with opponent.

Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed opposition and allowed “V&W” to survive.


It is noteworthy that a mark consisting of two alphabetical letters written in a plain font design is considered less distinctive in Japan. In this respect, IR no. 1272004 for the word mark “VW” did not function to broadly protect the VW emblem in favor of Volkswagen.

Masaki MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

Who shall be a legitimate owner of smiley face mark?

In a lawsuit disputing adequacy of decision by the JPO Appeal Board (Appeal case no. 2016-15097) to refuse the applied mark composed of a name of the earliest known designer of the smiley, “Harvey Ball”, and the Smiley Face (TM2015-74154, class 25) due to a conflict with cited senior registrations no.1 to 3, the IP High Court sustained the decision being appealed.[Case no. Heisei 29 (Gyo-ke) 10034, Court decision date: August 8, 2017]

The applicant, a Japanese legal entity authorized to manage intellectual property of The Harvey Ball World Smile Foundation, argued dissimilarity of the smiley design and alleged that the design becomes less distinctive as a source indicator, but just a stylized representation of a smiling humanoid face on the grounds that similar designs have been used for many years and 7,000 marks containing the design are/were registered.
Besides, taking account of a high degree of popularity as the earliest known designer, the word element of “Harvey Ball” shall function dominantly as a source indicator in applied mark. If so, applied mark shall be dissimilar to cited registrations.

But the Court denied them entirely based on following reasons.

  • Court found the smiley design representing a smiling human face in a simple and symbolic manner is sufficiently distinctive. No adverse evidence is produced.
  • Given the word element of “Harvey Ball” depicted slightly over the Smiley Face is written in a common font design and a small font size, most impressive portion of the applied mark shall be the Smiley Face from appearance.
  • In view of visual impression, both the Smiley Face of applied mark and cited registrations can be easily seen to depict a smiling human face in a simple and symbolic manner. Accordingly, both marks are deemed similar.
  • Even if cited registrations happened to be associated with the Smiley Face created by Harvey Ball, it would not affect the decision. Likewise, the word element of “Harvey Ball” in applied mark has less influence to the decision as well.

The Court decision gives us a lesson that high popularity of the Smiley Face designer will not guarantee the position of a trademark owner to the design if it becomes a generic symbol as a result of widespread, common use in the marketplace.

Masaki MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

“AI inside” is unlikely to be associated with INTEL

In a recent decision, the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to dismiss the trademark opposition filed by Intel Corporation to mark “AI inside”.

“AI inside”

The mark in dispute, consisting of a word mark “AI inside” in standard characters, was filed on March 28, 2016 in the name of AI inside Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese corporation, by designating computer programs and electronic devices in class 9, and providing computer programs on data networks, software as a service [SaaS] in class 42. JPO granted to protect the mark without announcing any refusal ground as a result of substantive examination and published for registration on October 18, 2016.

Intel opposes to trademark registration

Intel Corporation, famous for the world’s largest semiconductor company, filed an opposition to the mark “AI inside” and requested the Board to cancel its registration due to violation of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law retroactively.

“Intel inside”

In the opposition, Intel cited following senior trademark registrations containing a term of “inside”.

Series of “INSIDE” marks

Intel claimed the mark “AI inside” should be deemed confusingly similar to “Intel INSIDE” and other “INSIDE” marks cited by opponent since opposed mark allocates the term “inside” subsequent to other word as well. Given the cited marks respectively become famous for source indicator of opponent or its products, relevant traders and consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive both marks are from the same business entity. Besides, presumably applicant must have applied the opposed mark by knowing of Intel Corporation and cited marks in advance. If so, it is undeniable that applicant maliciously aimed to tarnish or free-ride on the reputation and goodwill of the opponent by adopting a similar mark.

Board decision

The Opposition Board admitted that both terms of “Intel” and “intel inside” have become famous to indicate opponent or his products among relevant traders and consumers, however, denied a certain degree of recognition to other cited marks relating to “INSIDE” owned by opponent based on the facts that opponent failed to produce evidences to demonstrate actual use of mark allocating “INSIDE” subsequent to a term other than “intel” and that the term “inside” is a generic term used to mean an inner side.

In the assessment of trademark similarity, the Board concluded opposed mark is evidently dissimilar to the citations from visual, phonetic and conceptual aspect, partly because the term of “AI” is known for an abbreviation of Artificial Intelligence. It is quite unlikely, the Board found, that famous mark “Intel inside” gives rise to a sound of “inside” in the mind of relevant traders and consumers by neglecting prominent mark “Intel”. If so, the same configuration allocating “INSIDE” subsequent to other term is insufficient to take sides with opponent’s allegation that relevant consumers conceive the opposed mark as a series of opponent mark. Given dissimilarity of both marks and unlikelihood of confusion due to a low degree of recognition to the cited “INSIDE” marks other than “Intel inside”, applicant should not be blamed for malicious intention in registering the opposed mark accordingly.

Based on the foregoing, the Board dismissed the opposition entirely and granted trademark registration no. 5881845 for the mark “AI inside” in class 9 and 42.
[Opposition case no. 2016-900399]

MASAKI MIKAMI, Attorney  at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

 

SKY ROVER is unlikely to cause confusion with LAND ROVER when used on wallets, school bags, handbags and trunks

The Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office decided to dismiss an opposition claimed by Jaguar Land Rover Limited who alleged trademark registration no. 5844561 for the mark “SKY ROVER” with figurative elements (see below) designating goods of “wallets, school bags, handbags, and trunks” in class 18 owned by a Taiwanese is confusingly similar to “ROVER”, “LAND ROVER”, “RANGE ROVER” famous for four-wheel-drive vehicles produced by the opponent.

Jaguar Land Rover Limited cited ten trademark registrations for “LAND ROVER” or “RANDE ROVER” and produced evidences to demonstrate substantial use in Japan since 1990’s. However, the Board did not approve high levels of consumer recognition to the marks in association with cars due to a failure to disclose sales amount, advertisement or promotional activity and annual car sales in connection with the cited marks. If so, it is unlikely that consumers consider a term of “ROVER” independently from the configuration of cited marks. In the assessment of trademark similarity, both marks are apparently dissimilar as a whole from visual, sound and conceptual point of view even if they contain a term “ROVER” in common.

Besides, by taking into consideration of remoteness of cars and opposed goods (wallets, school bags, handbags and trunks), it is less likely that consumes misconceive or associate the opposed mark with “LAND ROVER” or “RANDE ROVER” nor confuse goods with the opposed mark from any business entity connected with opponent.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided to sustain registration of the opposed mark since the opposition was totally groundless. [Opposition case no. 2016-900200]

MASAKI MIKAMI, Attorney at IP LAW – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM