“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

 

Apple failed to block Swatch’s attempt to acquire the trademark for Steve Jobs’ catchphrase ‘one more thing’

The Swiss watchmaker Swatch’s effort to acquire the trademark for “SWATCH ONE MORE THING” has run in to opposition from Apple, which argues the phrase ‘one more thing’ is closely associated with the software giant’s founder Steve Jobs. During Apple press events, Jobs was known to precede new product announcements and introductions with the phrase “there is one more thing” in his keynote addresses. The “one more thing” prelude became a fixture at Apple events.

SWATCH ONE MORE THING

The watchmaker has taken out an international trademark on the phrase “SWATCH ONE MORE THING”. The trademark was registered under IR no. 1261460 with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in May 22, 2015 by designating more than 40 countries including Japan and various goods in class 9, 14 as follows.

Class09 Apparatus for recording, transmission and reproduction of sound or images; electronic payment processing apparatus, apparatus for processing cashless payment transactions; magnetic recording media, sound recording disks; compact disks, DVDs and other digital recording media; apparatus enabling the playing of compressed sound files (MP3); calculating machines and data processing equipment, software; game software for mobile telephones, for computers and for digital personal stereos; electronic game software for mobile telephones, for computers and for digital personal stereos; computers, portable computers, handheld computers, mobile computers, personal computers, wrist computers, electronic tablets and computerized and mobile devices, digital personal stereos, mobile telephones and new-generation mobile telephones featuring greater functionality (smartphones); telecommunication apparatus and instruments; apparatus for recording, transmission, reproduction of sound or images, particularly mobile telephones and new-generation mobile telephones incorporating greater functionality (smartphones); hand-held electronic apparatus for accessing the Internet and sending, receiving, recording and storing short messages, electronic messages, telephone calls, faxes, video conferences, images, sound, music, text and other digital data; handheld electronic apparatus for wireless receiving, storing and transmitting of data or messages; handheld electronic apparatus for monitoring and organizing personal information; handheld electronic apparatus for global positioning [GPS] and displaying maps and transport information; handheld electronic devices for detecting, monitoring, storing, surveillance and transmitting data relating to the user activity, namely position, itinerary, distance traveled, heart rate; covers for computers, portable and mobile telephones; optical apparatus and instruments, particularly spectacles, sunglasses, magnifying glasses; cases for spectacles, magnifying glasses and sunglasses; batteries and cells for computers and electronic and chronometric apparatus. 

Class14 Precious metals and their alloys and goods made of these materials or coated therewith included in this class, namely figurines, trophies; jewelry, namely rings, earrings, cufflinks, bracelets, charms, brooches, chains, necklaces, tie pins, tie clips, jewelry caskets, jewelry cases; precious stones, semi-precious stones; timepieces and chronometric instruments, namely chronometers, chronographs, clocks, watches, wristwatches, wall clocks, alarm clocks as well as parts and accessories for the aforesaid goods, namely hands, anchors, pendulums, barrels, watch cases, watch straps, watch dials, clockworks, watch chains, movements for timepieces, watch springs, watch glasses, presentation cases for timepieces, cases for timepieces.

Apple filed an opposition

Immediately after the JPO admitted granting protection to the trademark, Apple filed an opposition in May 19, 2015 on the grounds that the trademark violates main paragraph of Article 3(1) as well as 4(1)(vii), 4(1)(x), 4(1)(xv), and 4(1)(xix) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Main paragraph of Article 3(1)

Main paragraph of Article 3(1) demands applicant to have used or intend to genuinely use applied mark. Where examiners have “reasonable doubts” about the use of a trademark or intention to use a trademark by the applicant on the designated goods, the examiners shall reject the application based on the ground. Likewise, the trademark is subject to cancellation if opposition board has convinced of such reasonable doubts during opposition procedure.
Apple claimed that Swatch filed the trademark with a malicious intention to hinder the business of opponent since Swatch has been aware of the phrase ‘one more thing’ used by Steve Jobs. Besides, Swatch has not used the trademark. If so, it is obvious that Swatch will not intend to use the mark on designated goods.

Article 4(1)(vii)

Article 4(1)(vii) prohibits a trademark which is likely to cause damage to public order or morality from registering.
Apple claimed that the trademark should be subject to cancellation based on the ground as long as Swatch, having been aware of the phrase ‘one more thing’ used by Steve Jobs, filed the trademark with a malicious intention to hinder the business of opponent.

Article 4(1)(x)

Article 4(1)(x) prohibits to register a trademark which is identical with, or similar to, other entity’s well-known mark over goods or services closely related with the entity’s business.
Apple claimed that the dominant portion of trademark “SWATCH ONE MORE THING” is similar to Steve Jobs’ catchphrase ‘one more thing’, since the phrase has become famous among relevant consumers as admitted in administrative decision of the Turkish Patent Office. Besides, designated goods in class 9 are closely related with Apple products.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits to register a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with a business of other entity.
Apple cited administrative decision of the Turkish Patent Office on the claim as well and alleged that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the applied trademark and Steve Jobs’ catchphrase ‘one more thing’ in due course.

Article 4(1)(xix)

Article 4(1)(xix) prohibits to register a trademark which is identical with, or similar to, other entity’s famous mark, if such trademark is aimed for unfair purposes, e.g. gaining unfair profits, or causing damage to the entity.
Apple disputed on Swatch’s unfair purpose to free-ride prestigious fame bestowed on the Steve Jobs’ catchphrase as well as to harm or depreciate the value of goodwill by means of trademark dilution.

Opposition Board decision

Opposition Board dismissed Apple’s arguments.

Firstly, the Board denied famousness of the phrase ‘One more thing’ as a source indicator of Apple partly because the phrase can be commonly used in daily conversation and Apple failed to produce evidences demonstrating the phrase is used as a source indicator other than verbal presentation by Steve Jobs.
Secondly, in the assessment of trademark similarity, the Board considered “SWATCH” plays an important and dominative role as a source indicator by taking into consideration of the facts that SWATCH becomes famous among consumers in connection with goods of class 9 and less distinctiveness of the phrase ‘ONE MORE THING”. If so, it should be concluded that  because of presence or absence of “SWATCH” both marks are distinctively dissimilar from visual, sound and conceptual point of view.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the opposed mark is not objectionable under Article 4(1)(x), (xv) and (xix) of the Trademark Law due to less recognized awareness of the phrase ‘One more thing’ as a source indicator of Apple and dissimilarity of both marks. The Board also considered that previous trademark disputes between the parties would not suffice to decide Swatch had a malicious intention to hinder the business of opponent. Therefore, the opposition is groundless to conclude the opposed mark is likely to cause damage to public order or morality under Article 4(1)(vii).
Likewise, it is insufficient to conclude that Swatch lacks an intention to use the opposed mark not-too-distant future given the designated goods in class 9, 14 are related to wristwatches to a certain extent (Main paragraph of Article 3(1)).

[Opposition case number: 2016-685012, Decision date: April 20, 2017]

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

“F1 HEATER” was cancelled due to a likelihood of confusion with “F1” when used on electric heaters

The Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to cancel a trademark registration for word mark “F1 HEATER” in favor of an opponent, Formula One Licensing BV.
[Opposition case no. 2016-900251]

F1 HEATER

Opposed mark “F1 HEATER” was filed on December 4, 2015 by designating electric heaters in class 11 and granted for registration on March 24, 2016.
Upon a payment of statutory registration fee, the opposed mark was published in gazette on June 14, 2016.

Opposition by Formula One

Formula One Licensing BV, managing the trade marks for the FIA Formula One World Championship, filed an opposition based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law by complaining that relevant public is likely to confuse or misconceive electric heaters using the opposed mark with goods derived from opponent group or any entity economically or systematically connected with opponent.

Likelihood of confusion

The Opposition Board admitted “F1” has become famous as an indicator of car races and automotive for race managed by the opponent among relevant consumers in Japan.
In the assessment of trademark similarity, the Board considered a word “HEATER” is less distinctive in relation to electric heaters. If so, consumers and traders are likely to conceive that the opposed mark contains the term “F1” from appearance and confuse a source of electric heaters with FIA, opponent or any entity economically or systematically connected with opponent. Accordingly, the opposed mark should be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) retroactively.

Opposed mark owner voluntarily waived trademark registration during the opposition trial prior to a decision.

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

 

 

JPO concluded a famous smart phone cover glass brand “Gorilla Glass” is unlikely to cause confusion with “2.5D Gorilla Glass 3” when used on bracelets, personal ornaments, and jewelery

In a trademark opposition between Corning Inc. (USA) and LG Electronics Inc. (KOREA), the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed the opposition against trademark registration no. 5862676 for word mark “2.5D Gorilla Glass 3”.

“Gorilla Glass” vs “2.5D Gorilla Glass 3”

Corning Inc. opposed to register the word mark “2.5D Gorilla Glass 3” designating goods of bracelets, personal ornaments, and jewellery in class 14 based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law by asserting a likelihood of confusion with his famous smart phone cover glass brand “Gorilla Glass”.

Famous smartphone cover glass

The Opposition Board admitted a certain level of awareness of trademark “Gorilla Glass” in association with smart phone cover glass and scratch-resistant and durable glass for electronics devices. In the meantime, the Board denied famousness of the trademark among relevant consumers and traders to deal with bracelets, personal ornaments, and jewellery.

Assessment of trademark similarity

In the assessment of trademark similarity, the Board held that dominant portion of the opposed mark is considered “2.5D Gorilla Glass” by deleting “3” at the ending of the mark. If so, it is groundless to assess similarity of mark simply based on literal elements of “Gorilla Glass” from both marks.

Likelihood of confusion

As long as the cited mark “Gorilla Glass” has not become famous in association with bracelets, personal ornaments and jewellery, relevant consumers at first sight of the opposed mark are unlikely to confuse or misconceive a source of origin from Corning Inc. or any business entity economically or systematically connected with the opponent.
[Opposition case no. 2016-900303]

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

American heavy metal band, METALLICA failed in an opposition against trademark METALICA

In a recent Japan trademark opposition decision, the Opposition Board of JPO ruled that a word mark “METALICA” (Opposed mark) is unlikely to confuse with “METALLICA” well known for an American heavy metal band in connection with goods of class 9 and 14. [Opposition case no. 2016-900260]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark, solely consisting of a word “METALICA” written in a plain alphabetical letter, was filed on June 25, 2015 in the name of LG Electronics Incorporated, a Korean corporation, by designating various electronics, such as, smart phone, cell phones, personal digital appliance (PDA), audio stereo, music players of class 9 and watch, personal ornaments of class 14. JPO granted to register the mark on May 20, 2016 under TM registration no. 5851357.

 

Opposition

The Japan Trademark Law provides that anyone is entitled to file an opposition against new trademark registration within two months from the publication date of gazette under article of 43bis.

METALLICA filed an opposition against the mark “METALICA” by citing IR no. 858989 for a word mark of “METALLICA” covering goods of class 3, 6, 9, 14, 16, 25, and asserted to cancel Opposed mark based on article 4(1)(viii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law.

 

Article 4(1)(viii)

Article 4(1)(viii) prohibits to register a mark containing the portrait of another person, or the name, famous pseudonym, professional name or pen name of another person, or famous abbreviation thereof (except those the registration of which has been approved by the person concerned). The article aims to protect personal right of living person or legal entity.

Opponent, METALLICA, a partnership corporation established by members of the band, alleged that Opposed mark “METALICA” can be conceived of the opponent or US famous heavy metal band due to identical appearance and pronunciation with “METALLICA”.

The Board dismissed the allegation of Article 4(1)(viii) by stating that “METALICA” does not contain “METALLICA” in a precise and strict sense.

 

Article 4(1)(xv)

Article 4(1)(xv) prohibits to register a mark which is likely to cause confusion in connection with the goods or services pertaining to a business of another person.

Opponent alleged relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive goods with Opposed mark “METALICA” as goods from opponent in view of similarity of both marks and substantial reputation acquired among rock music fanatics.

The Board admits widespread reputation of “METALLICA” among traders and consumers relating to goods and service of rock music, such as music CD and music live performance. In the meantime, famousness of the mark “METALLICA” on any goods and service unrelated to music was denied.

In the assessment of similarity, the Board admitted both marks are deemed similar in appearance, sound, concept. However, the goods designated under Opposed mark are remotely associated with T-shirts, caps, posters, badges, music videos and goods or service related to American rock music of METALLICA’s interest.

Based on the forgoing, the Board concluded that “METALICA” is unlikely to confuse or misconceive with “METALLICA” in connection with goods of class 9 and 14.

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

Famous sportswear brand “PUMA” unsuccessful in setting aside registration of “KUMA” mark

In a recent Japan trademark opposition decision, the Opposition Board ruled that famous PUMA logo for sportswear was dissimilar to the “KUMA” mark with bear design for goods in class 25, so as to cause confusion.

In the case, Opposition case no. 2016-900308, the Board was faced with considering whether the KUMA device mark of Applicant for “clothing; headgears; T-shirts; sportswear; sports shoes” in class 25 was confusingly similar to Opponent’s famous PUMA logo for “sportswear”.

In concluding that confusion was unlikely, the Board stated that two “key considerations” in making such a determination were famousness of Opponent’s mark and the similarity between the trademarks. With regard to the former factor, the Board admitted remarkable reputation and famousness of the PUMA logo among relevant public in Japan. The Board nonetheless reached its conclusion of dissimilarity – most likely on the fact that difference in the first letter generates distinctive impression in the mind of consumers since “KUMA” means bears (wild animals) in Japanese.

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

“MAMAS & PAPAS” failed in an opposition to invalidate trademark registration for the mark “PAPA’S&MAMA’S”.

The Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office issued a decision denying the opposition filed by MAMAS & PAPAS HOLDINGS LIMITED, a UK-based retailer and manufacturer supplying prams, pushchairs, baby products, furniture and maternity wear, and declared to sustain trademark registration no. 5853559 for the mark “PAPA’S&MAMA’S” in Class 18 and 44. [Opposition case no. 2016-900270]


Opposed mark

Opposed mark was filed by PAPA’S&MAMA’S Co. Ltd., designating goods of bags and pouches in class 18 and services of aesthetician services, beauty care and hairdressing in class 44 on March 15, 2016 and granted for protection on May 27 of the year.


 Opponent

MAMAS & PAPAS HOLDINGS LIMITED alleged to cancel the registration due to violation of Article 4(1)(xi) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law in an opposition by citing his senior registered marks of “MAMAS & PAPAS”.


Opposition

The Opposition Board dismissed an opposition based on Article 4(1)(xi) by stating the ground as follows.

 Sound

Five sounds of opposed mark among 9 sounds in total are identical with opponent mark, however, overall pronunciations are clearly distinguishable due to reverse order of “PAPA” and “MAMA” so that both marks are deemed dissimilar in verbal point of view.

Meaning

Admittedly, both marks may give rise to a meaning of father and mother from word of “PAPA” and “MAMA” respectively. But difference coming from possessive form and plural form inevitably causes non-negligible gap in connotation as a whole.

Appearance

Likewise, both marks are deemed comparatively dissimilar in visual point of view by taking into consideration of reverse order of “PAPA” and “MAMA”, possessive form and plural form.

Conclusion

Taking account of fact that opponent mark has not acquired remarkable reputation as well, the Board decided to conclude both marks are unlikely to cause confusion in the mind of consumers and thus entirely dissimilar.


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

Consumers are unlikely to confuse or associate the mark “GOTHAM CITY” with Batman’s place of residence and DC Comics when used on apparels, bags and fashion accessories

The Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) has cancelled an initial decision by JPO examiner to refuse the mark “GOTHAM CITY” with a logo, and ordered to grant protection for the mark by decision of March 14, 2017 [Appeal case no. 2016-9140].


Trademark in dispute

The mark in dispute consists of “GOTHAM CITY” written in alphabetical letters and Japanese characters as shown below.

Applicant filed the mark on April 17, 2015 to the JPO by covering goods of “key holders; fashion accessories” in class 14, “bags; pouches; vanity cases” in class 18, and “clothing; waistbands; belts” in class 25 [TM application no. 2015-37755].


Initial examination

JPO examiner initially refused the mark for confusion with DC comics, a US comic book publisher, or its affiliate pursuant to Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japanese Trademark Law since “GOTHAM CITY” is widely known as a fictitious city out of Batman from DC Comics.

Article 4(1)(xv) is a provision to prohibit any applied mark from being registered where relevant consumers or traders are likely to confuse or associate the mark with renowned sources other than applicant. It would suffice to apply the provision where consumers conceive goods or services with the mark derive from entities systematically or economically connected with the source even if relevant consumers believe the goods or services are not from the source.

It is not conditioned that renowned source indicator should be registered in advance, however, the indicator must obtain high degree of trademark awareness from the nature of things.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Article 4 Notwithstanding the preceding Article, no trademark shall be registered if the trademark:
(xv) is likely to cause confusion in connection with the goods or services pertaining to a business of another person


Appeal

Applicant filed an appeal against the refusal decision by examiner on June 21, 2016 and argued for registration of the mark in dispute.

Consequently, the Appeal Board decided in favor of applicant by stating its grounds as follows.

Distinctiveness/Awareness of GOTHAM CITY

The Board considers that the word “GOTHAM” is an unfamiliar or rarely known word in our society. Thus, the applied mark with a combination of “GOTHAM” and “CITY” and its pronunciation in Japanese characters is deemed an invented word in its entirety and does not give rise to any specific meaning at all.

In the meantime, ex-officio examination during the appeal trial revealed that the term of “GOTHAM CITY” corresponds to a fictitious city out of Batman which has been published by a US publisher, DC Comics, since 1939 as a work of comic book, movies, television programs in series worldwide. In view of high movie box office ranking to Batman movies and DVD series in Japan, it is no doubt that Batman becomes famous among the general public. But, when it comes to “GOTHAM CITY”, it just appears in texts to introduce contents of these movies and DVDs. Board could not find any fact to demonstrate the term is used at advertisement or promotional materials in a manner to attract attention to the public.

If so, the Board may admit a certain degree of awareness of the term “GOTHAM CITY” to represent a fictitious city out of Batman among movie fans. But it must be insufficient to admit the term is widely known among the public in general.

Remoteness with goods in dispute

Apparels, fashion accessories and bags. These goods in dispute for general consumers with an ordinary care are distinctively different from goods or services in the field of entertainment, movie and comics in light of remoteness of manufacturers/suppliers, location of transaction, distribution channels and usage/applications.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Board held that it is inadmissible to find the term “GOTHAM CITY” has obtained high degree of awareness among ordinary consumers in connection with apparels, bags and fashion accessories at the time of initial application as well as the time of the trial decision.

If so, relevant consumers and traders are less likely to conceive a source of goods with the mark in dispute from entities systematically or economically connected with DC Comics. Accordingly, the Board finds that it is quite unlikely to cause confusion between applicant and DC Comics.

Therefore, the refusal decision errored in applying Article 4(1)(xv) on the case and should be cancelled.


Trademark registration of Geographical names

The Trademark Examination Manual (TEM), official criteria released by JPO, sets forth issues relating to foreign geographical names (TEM 41.103.01).
TEM 41.103.01 provides that name of a city, sightseeing spot will be refused in principle on the grounds that it indicates the location where the goods are manufactured and sold (location of transaction) or the location of service, even though these names may not be directly perceived as the location of transaction in the mind of consumers.

It is noteworthy that TEP has no reference to a name of fictitious city.

Board decision implies name of fictitious city can be registered by unrelated entity to original work of art unless the city gets popular among the public in general as well.

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

“WORLD SERIES OF FIGHTING” is less likely to cause confusion with “WORLD SERIES” owned by Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.

The Opposition Board of JPO (Japan Patent Office) dismissed an opposition claimed by Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., a US corporation managing trademark portfolio pertinent to US major league baseball, and determined to sustain trademark registration no. 5858151 for word mark “WORLD SERIES OF FIGHTING” [Opposition case no. 2016-900288].

WORLD SERIES OF FIGHTING

The mark in question consists of a standard character mark “WORLD SERIES OF FIGHTING” covering the goods of apparels, shoes, caps, underwear, uniforms and sportswear (class 25) and the service of entertainment or events relating to Mixed Martial Arts (class 41).

OPPOSITION by Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.

Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. filed an opposition based on the grounds that (i)WORLD SERIES OF FIGHTING” conflicts with senior trademark registrations for the mark “WORLD SERIES” owned by the opponent due to similarity between marks, (ii) there finds a likelihood of confusion with the source between marks because of high recognition of “WORLD SERIES” to indicate the annual championship of baseball games between the champions of the two major baseball leagues in the United States, the American League and the National League.

Similarity between marks

In evaluating the similarities between marks, the Board analyzed the similarity in the sight, sound and meaning of the marks.
The Board concluded “WORLD SERIES OF FIGHTING” is easily distinguishable from “WORLD SERIES” in appearance and pronunciation as a consequence of “FIGHTING” at the end of the mark in question. Besides, “WORLD SERIES OF FIGHTING” gives rise to meaning of a series of global events pertinent to martial art match. In the meantime, “WORLD SERIES” can be conceived to mean the championship games between major baseball leagues in the United States. Evidently, both marks are dissimilar from a conceptual point of view.
Accordingly, both marks are deemed dissimilar.

Likelihood of confusion

As long as both marks are distinctively dissimilar in the sight, sound and meaning as mentioned supra, relevant consumers at an ordinary care are unlikely to confuse or associate the source of the mark in question with the opponent when used on goods and services in dispute even if “WORLD SERIES” has become well-known for a source indicator of the opponent among consumers in Japan.

Accordingly, the Board concluded the opposition should be denied since it lacks grounds to be sustained.


I have no idea why the Board denied a likelihood of confusion between marks despite admitting a widespread reputation of “WORLD SERIES”.
As long as opposed mark contains a famous mark “WORLD SERIES” entirely, it should be cancelled on the goods of class 25 at least in view of similarity between goods in dispute.

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