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

“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

 

Famous hotel brand “RITZ” successful in invalidating “RITZ MARCHE”

Invalidation trial

The Japan Trademark Law contains provision for invalidation of trademark registration by means of inter partes trial in Article 46 as a remedy to questionable ex-officio examination of the Japan Patent Office (JPO).
Statistically, approximately 100 invalidation petitions were filed to the JPO in each of the past five years. Nearly 40 percentages of them ended successfully in an invalidation of registered mark in question on average.

[Trademark invalidation trial]

Year Number of cases Disposition of trial
Invalidation Dismissal Withdrawal
2015 100 37 58 19
2014 115 38 32 15
2013 96 37 53 10
2012 118 44 76 16
2011 112 38 57 9

RITZ v. RITZMARCHE

Ritz Hotel Ltd., a world famous hotel management company, petitioned for invalidation of trademark registration no. 5594878 for a word mark “RITZMARCHE” (written in Katakana letter) covering “retail services or wholesale services for foods and beverages” in class 35 pursuant to Article 46 of the Trademark Law on the following grounds.

  1. Consumers are likely to confuse or associate the mark in dispute with Ritz Hotel due to remarkable reputation bestowed on famous hotel brand, “RITZ”.
  2. “RITZMARCHE” is deemed confusingly similar to senior trademark registrations owned by Ritz Hotel Ltd.

[Marks in dispute]

Ground 1 corresponds to on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law to prohibit any mark likely to cause confusion with a business of another entity from being registered.

Ground 2 rests on Article 4(1)(xi) to bar registration of a junior mark which conflicts with any senior trademark registration due to similarity of both marks and goods/services.

It becomes a common practice to raise several grounds in an invalidation petition. Combination of Article 4(1)(xv) and 4(1)(xi) is a standard tactic in trademark dispute involving a famous brand. Theoretically, Article 4(1)(xv) can’t be applied unless Article 4(1)(x) is inapplicable to the case. Article 4(1)(xi) is useful to the extent the marks as well as goods/services in question are identical or similar. In the meantime, Article 4(1)(xv)   targets a wider territory where consumers are likely to confuse the source of origin between marks. In other words, Article 4(1)(xv) becomes helpful only where both marks are dissimilar, or goods/services in question are deemed dissimilar. Due to a wider protection to Article 4(1)(xv), a petitioner who claims the article is required to prove high recognition and substantial use of an opposing mark accordingly.

It is of no matter that JPO renders an invalidation decision simply based on Article 4(1)(xi) without reference to Article 4(1)(xv).

On the Ritz case, the JPO Trial Board held to invalidate registered mark “RITZMARCHE” on the grounds of Article 4(1)(xi).


Board decision

In the assessment of similarity, the Board considered a term “MARCHE” is less distinctive or inherently descriptive in connection with “retail services or wholesale services for foods and beverages” of class 35 since the term itself means “market” in French. Besides it can be seen often as a sign to indicate a place where merchants provide foods or beverages directly to consumers in Japan. Meanwhile, average consumers with an ordinary care are unlikely to perceive any descriptive meaning from the term of “RITZ”. Therefore, in the configuration of disputed mark “RITZMARCHE”, it should be allowed to extract the term “RITZ” as a prominent part of the mark.

In comparing the Katakana letter of “Ritz” with alphabetical term “RITZ” of cited marks, both have same sound. Their meaning is incomparable since both don’t give rise to specific meaning. Both terms are different in appearance, however, it becomes commercially routine to write alphabetical names in Katakana letters for purpose of representing pronunciation of the terms in fact. Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that “RITZMARCHE” and Ritz Hotel registered marks containing a term of “RITZ” are confusingly similar as a whole, by taking into consideration of relevant factors in commerce relevant to disputed goods/services. The Board also held that “retail services or wholesale services for foods and beverages” in class 35 is considered similar to food products in class 30 designated under the citations.
[Invalidation case no. 2016-890033]

The Board didn’t refer to Article 4(1)(xv) although Ritz Hotel argued famousness of cited mark “RITZ” with enormous amount of evidential materials as mentioned reason.
If Ritz Hotel has filed the invalidation action solely based on Article 4(1)(xv), the JPO must have admitted famousness of the mark “RITZ” and invalidated “RITZMARCHE” likewise.


NEW TRADEMARK EXAMINATION GUIDELINE

In April 2017, the JPO announced new trademark examination guideline [Revision 13].
The guideline aims to reflect recent judicial decisions and non-traditional trademarks. Inter alia, Article 4(1)(xi) is hot topic due to its significance as a key provision pertinent to assessment of mark similarity. From now on, it is more likely that the JPO admits an argument of prominent part of trademark than before, even if the mark consists of other words or figurative elements.
I suppose, the RITZ case is timely ruled in line with New Guideline.

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

The IP High Court ruled a trademark “TOMATO SYSTEM” is deemed similar to “TOMATO” in connection with the service of computer programming

On March 23, 2017, in a lawsuit disputing registrability of an applied word mark “TOMATO SYSTEM” in standard character designating goods of electronic machines, apparatus and parts thereof (Class 9), and services of computer software design, computer programing, or maintenance of computer software; technological advice relating to computers, automobiles and industrial machines; testing or research on machines, apparatus and instruments; providing computer programs on data networks (Class 42), the IP High Court upheld the original refusal decision rendered by the JPO Appeal Board and dismissed the lawsuit filed by applicant, Ishiguro Medical System Co., Ltd. [Case No. Heisei 28 (Gyo-Ke) 10208].

 


 

JPO decision

Initially, JPO examiner rejected to register the applied mark “TOMATO SYSTEM” due to conflict with senior registration no. 4394923 for word mark “TOMATO” in standard character designating services of technological advice relating to computers; computer software design in Class 42 (Citation 1) and no. 5238348 for “tomato” with a device mark designating retail/wholesale services for electrical machinery and apparatus in Class 35 (Citation 2). Applicant sought to file an appeal against the rejection by arguing dissimilarity of both marks, however, the Appeal Board decided to refuse the applied mark on the basis of Article 4 (1) (xi) of the Trademark Law in a decision dated July 28, 2016 [Appeal Case No. 2016-2278].

In the decision, the Board concluded “TOMATO”, an English term meaning red edible fruit, does not imply any descriptive meaning in association with the designated goods and services. In the meantime, a term “SYSTEM” easily reminds consumers of meanings to suggest organized, purposeful structure that consists of interrelated and interdependent elements when used on machines, apparatus and computer software. Unless we find conceptual connection between two terms, it is allowed to segregate the applied mark into each element in the assessment of mark comparison. If so, relevant consumers at an ordinary care are likely to consider the term “TOMATO” as a predominant portion of the applied mark. Based on the foregoing, the Board judged the applied mark is deemed similar to Citation 1 and 2.


IP High Court 

In the lawsuit, plaintiff claimed the Board decision was defectively inappropriate since it is not allowed to segregate each term composing the applied mark in light of tight combination of both terms and ambiguous meaning of the term “SYSTEM” in relating to designated goods and services.

The Court upheld the Board decision by declaring “SYSTEM” is less distinctive in connection with goods or services relating to information processing. Therefore, it is permissible to segregate the applied mark into each element and to judge similarity of mark based on a predominant element of the mark in dispute.



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

 

 

“ANNIVERSARY DIAMOND” versus “ANNIVERSARY”

The JPO Appeal Board ruled that

a senior trademark registration for the mark “ANNIVERSARY” in standard character designating jewelry in class 14 is unlikely to cause confusion with a junior mark “ANNIVERSARY DIAMOND” written in plain letters other than a letter “O” which was replaced with a diamond-ring device (see below), even if the mark is used on diamond rings in class 14[Fufuku2015-19812].


anniversary-diamond


The Appeal Board cancelled a refusal decision rendered by the JPO examiner on the grounds that:
(1) From appearance and pronunciation, the “ANNIVERSARY DIAMOND” logo can be perceived as one mark in its entirety. Besides, both terms of “ANNIVERSARY” and “DIAMOND” are quite familiar with relevant public in Japan and thus concept of “ANNIVERSARY DIAMOND” can be easily conceived from the combination.
(2) Due to the configuration, it must be appropriate to consider that the logo just gives rise to its pronunciation and meaning as a whole.
(3) Therefore, the refusal decision based on the assumption that the term of “ANNIVERSARY” plays a dominant role in the logo made a factual mistake and should be cancelled consequently.

Seemingly, above conclusion is not coincident with the Trademark Examination Guidelines (TEG) criteria as below.

Chapter III, Part 10 of TEG provides that:
A composite trademark having characters representing an adjective (characters indicating the quality, raw materials, etc. of goods or characters indicating the quality of services, the location of its provision, quality, etc.) is judged as similar to a trademark without the adjective as a general rule.

In this respect, as long as the junior mark designates diamond rings in class 14 and the device depicted on the term “DIAMOND” further impresses the concept of diamond rings in mind of consumers, the portion of “DIAMOND” should be considered descriptive. Otherwise, any combined mark composed of registered mark and a generic term pertinent to the designated goods is deemed dissimilar to the registered mark.

I suppose the Board just aimed to declare narrower scope of right where trademark consists of a dictionary word commonly used to the public.

Registrability of two alphabetical letter trademarks in Japan

According to Article 3(1)(v) of the Japanese Trademark Law,

Any trademark solely consisted of a very simple and common mark may not be registered.

 Trademark Examination Guideline(TEG) pertinent to the article (Chapter I, Part 7) specifies that:

Trademarks composed of (a) one or two alphabetical letter, (b) two alphabetical letters hyphened, or (c) one or two alphabetical letter preceded or followed by a term representing business entity, e.g. “Co.” “Ltd.”, are not registrable on the grounds of Article 3(1)(v).

 In the meantime, trademarks consisted of (a) two alphabetical letters combined with “&”, (b) two alphabetical letters depicted in monogram, (c) Japanese katakana characters transliterating two alphabetical letters, or (d) two alphabetical letter represented in a unique design do not fall under the article.

 http://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/pdf/tt1302-002/1-7.pdf

You had better note that TEG admits to register Japanese katakana characters transliterating two alphabetical letters. That means, even if alphabetical letter trademark would fail to register due to the article, you may have an option to register transliteration of the mark in Japan.
Consequently, one or two alphabetical letter trademarks in standard character, including acronyms and abbreviations are under normal circumstances not registrable.
 As an exception, provided that the producer so effectively markets the product with the mark that consumers come to immediately associate the mark with only that producer of that particular kind of goods and thus one or two alphabetical letter trademarks attain acquired distinctiveness, the marks are entitled to trademark protection on the basis of Article 3(2).

 

Article 3(2) of the Japanese Trademark Law stipulates that:

Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a trademark that falls under any of items (iii) to (v) of the preceding paragraph may be registered if, as a result of the use of the trademark, consumers are able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.

How to decide similarity of composite marks

The Japanese Trademark Law sets forth:

– the use of a trademark similar to the registered trademark constitutes infringement of trademark right (Article 37(1)),

– trademark shall not be registered if the trademark is similar to another entity’s senior registered trademark (Article 4(1)(xi)).

It remains unclear from the articles how we can discriminate marks in dispute are similar or dissimilar.

Trademark examination guideline (TEG) plays a role to provide us with key factors in the assessment of similarity of marks.

[TEG Chapter 3, Part 10]

1.In judging the similarity of a trademark, decisive elements of the trademark, including its appearance, sound and concept need to be comprehensively taken into consideration.

2.A judgment on the similarity of a trademark needs to, with consideration given to a class of main users (for example, professionals, senior people, children, women, etc.) of goods or services on which the trademark is used, be made based on attentiveness usually possessed by the user, with consideration given to the state of transaction of the goods or the provision of the services.

The guidelines are set forth in conformity with precedent decisions of the Supreme Court.

In regard to composite marks, TEG enumerates seven cases and corresponding examples as follows.

 6.Concerning the similarity of a composite trademark composed of two or more elements, a judgment needs to be made based on the following among other things, with consideration given to the strength of a combination between its elements. However, this does not apply where such a trademark is judged clearly to produce a remarkably different appearance, sound and concept.

(1) A composite trademark having characters representing an adjective (characters indicating the quality, raw materials, etc. of goods or characters indicating the quality of services, the location of its provision, quality, etc.) is judged as similar to a trademark without the adjective as a general rule.

[Example]

“SUPER LION” v. “LION”,

“GINZA KOBAN” v. “KOBAN”,

“LADY GREEN” v. “LADY”

(2) A trademark composed of letters different in size is judged with respect to a group of letters identical in size as a general rule.

[Example]

“富士白鳥” v. “富士” or “白鳥”

“サンムーン” v. “サン” or “ムーン”

(3) A trademark composed of letters conspicuously separate apart from each other is judged with respect to a group of letters separate from others as a general rule.

[Example]

“鶴亀  万寿” v. “鶴亀” or “万寿”

(4) A trademark which, because of its long sound or its particularly conspicuous portion, may be simplified with a certain portion thereof is compared with other trademarks, in principle, with its portion picked up in its simplified form.

[Example]

“cherryblossomboy” v. “cherryblossom”,

“chrysanthemumbluesky” v. “kurisanshimamu” or “blue-sky”

(5) A trademark combining letters customarily used for the designated goods or designated services with other letters is compared with other trademarks with the customarily-used letters removed.

[Example]

“男山富士” v. “富士” for sake

“play guide shuttle” v. “shuttle” for arrangements for seats of entertainment facilities

 (6) A trademark combining another person’s registered trademark that is widely recognized in respect of the designated goods or designated services with other letters or figures, including one whose appearance in totality is well formed or one having a connection in concept, is judged as similar to that another person’s trademark, in principle, excluding however cases where the part of another person’s trademark has become an established word.

[Example]

“SONY” v. “SONYLINE” in respect of tape recorders

“L‘OREAL” v. “LOVE L‘OREAL” in respect of cosmetics

(7) A trademark composed of a trade name (including a trademark composed of an abbreviation of a trade name, as hereinafter applicable) having such characters as “Co.,” “K.K.” “Ltd.,” etc. customarily used as part of a trade name is judged with those characters removed as a general rule, irrespective of their position respective to the primary part of the trademark, either at its head or end.

 

In the meantime, the Supreme Court decision rendered in 2008 established general rule to grasp composite marks in its entirety in the assessment of similarity of mark.

 “Where a mark in dispute is recognized as a composite mark consisting of two elements or more, it is not permissible to decide similarity of mark as a whole simply by picking out an element of the composite mark and then comparing such element with other mark, unless consumers or traders are likely to perceive the element as a dominant portion appealing its source of origin of goods/service, or remaining elements truly lack inherent ability to serve as a source indicator in view of sound and concept.”

 

Based on the above rule, composite mark “TSUTSUMINO-OHINAKKOYA” was deemed dissimilar to a word mark “TSUSTUMI” on the grounds that latter portion of “OHINAKKOYA” is admittedly distinctive.

 Recent disputes arising from similarity of composite mark are entirely in conformity with the Supreme Court decision. Namely, a composite mark consisting of two or more distinctive elements will put you on the fast track to registration