JPO decision over POWER TECH trademark

In an administrative appeal disputing trademark similarity between TM registration no. 4015750 for word mark “POWERTECH” and a junior application no. 2016-137853 for the “AC POWERTECH” device mark represented as below, the Appeal Board of the Japan Patent Office decided that both marks are deemed dissimilar and reversed examiner’s rejection.
[Appeal case no. 2018-6124, Gazette issued date: October 26, 2018]

 

TM Registration no. 4015750

The cited mark, consisting of a word “POWERTECH” colored in red (see below), was registered on June 20, 1997 by designating various vehicles in class 12.

Junior Application no. 2016-137853

Applied junior mark consists of the following “AC POWERTECH” device mark (see below).

It was applied for registration on December 7, 2016 by designating vehicles in class 12.

The JPO examiner refused the applied mark due to a conflict with senior TM registration no. 4015750 based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

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.

 

Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection and disputed dissimilarity of both marks.

 

Board decision

In the decision, the Appeal Board held that:

Applied mark is a composite mark mainly consisting of two words of “AC” and “POWERTECH” written in two lines and a black hexagon.

Even if the term “AC” is likely to be used as an indication of type and mode of vehicles in commerce, from appearance of applied mark as a whole, the Board opines that relevant consumers would not conceive the term as indication of type or model. If so, it is questionable whether consumers ignore “AC” in the applied mark and pay considerable attention to the term “POWERTECH”. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that applied mark shall give rise to a pronunciation nothing but “AC POWERTECH” and no specific meaning.

Based on the foregoing, in the assessment of trademark similarity, the Board decided that:

Obviously, both marks are distinguishable in appearance. Given applied mark does give rise to a pronunciation of “AC POWERTECH” and no meaning, the Board finds no ground to affirm examiner’s rejection from visual, phonetic, and conceptual point of view.


Astonishingly, JPO viewed the applied mark “AC POWERTECH” in its entirety irrespective of significant difference in font size between “AC” and “POWERTECH”.

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

Luis Vuitton victory in trademark battle for remake use

In a trademark battle involving famous Louis Vuitton Monogram for remake use, the Japan IP High Court ruled in favor of Louis Vuitton and ordered appellant to pay 1.7 million JP-Yen for damages on October 23, 2018.

Custom-made Remake

Appellant has produced shoes, caps and other fashion items by making use of material of secondhand Louis Vuitton goods (see below) and promoted the items as a custom-made remake, e.g. LOUIS VUITTON REMAKE DENIM CAP/BLUE, through internet.

Unfair Competition Prevention Act

Louis Vuitton filed a lawsuit and demanded to stop selling the items as well as payment for the damage on the grounds that appellant’s act constitutes unfair competition under Article 2(1)(ii) of the Japan Unfair Prevention Act.

Article 2(1)(ii) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is a provision to prohibit any person from using a famous source indicator of another person without permission.

Appeal

Appellant argued they become popular among relevant consumers as a business entity to produce a custom-made remake from secondhand of genuine brand. If so, since consumers are fully aware that the items are remake, neither faked goods nor brand-new article, confusion is unlikely to happen in the mind of consumers. Besides, appellant insisted as long as the Louis Vuitton Monogram is not used as a source indicator but design, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is not applicable to the items.

IP High Court decision

The IP High Court decisively dismissed appellant’s allegations and decided the monogram on the items still plays a role of source indicator in view of remarkable reputation of Louis Vuitton Monogram. It can be easily presumed that average consumers at sight of the items shall conceive Louis Vuitton. Even if the items are sold as a custom-made remake or with any description to appeal the items made from secondhand, such facts will not affect the decision on the merit.
[Heisei 30 (Ne)10042]


The Unfair Competition Prevention Act is essential to the case where actual confusion would not happen in fact regardless of unauthorized commercial use of famous brand.

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

Trademark Dispute over Pendant Lamp Shade

In a decision to the invalidation trial claimed by LUIS POULSEN A/S, a Danish company, the Trial Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) upheld the petition and invalidated TM registration no. 5643726 for a combination mark containing the pendant lamp shade design (see below) in violation of Article 4(1)(xix) of the Trademark Law.
[Invalidation case no. 2017-890003, Gazette issue date: September 28, 2018]

 

Disputed mark

Disputed mark, consisting of a literal element “R&M Interior Store”, “R&M” logo in the shape of shield and the pendant lamp shade design (see below), was filed on June 14, 2013 by a Japanese business entity, designating wholesale or retail services for lighting apparatus and others in class 35.

Going through substantive examination, the JPO admitted registration on January 17, 2014. Three years after the registration, LUIS POULSEN A/S filed an invalidation action against disputed mark on January 4, 2017.

 

Invalidation trial

During the invalidation trial, LUIS POULSEN A/S argued disputed mark shall be invalidation based on Article 4(1)(xix) since the applicant filed the mark, confusingly similar to trademark registration no. 5825191 for 3D mark in the shape of unique pendant lamp shade (see below) well-known for “PH5” created by a Danish designer Poul Henningsen, with a malicious intention to damage claimant.

According to supporting evidence produced to the trial, “PH5” lamp was originally designed in 1958. It has been promoted for sale in the marketplace of Japan since 1976. More than 500,000 lamps have been produced and sold around the globe. To bolster its reputation, LUIS POULSEN submitted a written declaration by Danish Ambassador to Japan. Besides, 3D shape of “PH5” lamp shade is successfully registered by finding acquired distinctiveness as a result of substantial use and uniqueness finally to serve as a source indicator (TM Registration no. 5825191).


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.

 

Board decision

The Board found that:

  1. 3D shape of “PH5” lamp has become famous as a source indicator of LUIS POULSEN among relevant domestic consumers well before the filing date of disputed mark as a result of continuous marketing activities in Japan since 1976.
  2. In the assessment of trademark similarity, it is unquestionable that the pendant lamp shade design depicted in disputed mark closely resembles “PH5”. From overall appearance, relevant consumers and traders will conceive the portion of the pendant lamp shade design plays a dominant role in disputed mark.
  3. The fact that applicant promoted similar lamp shade as “reproduct” or “generic product” of “PH5” convinces us that applicant has been aware of prospective controversy and causing damage to business interest of LUIS POULSEN.

Based on the above findings, the Board concluded that applicant filed a similar mark to “PH5” well-known for a pendant lamp shade of LUIS POULSEN with a malicious intention to gain unfair profits or cause damage to claimant. Thus, disputed mark shall be invalidated in violation of Article 4(1)(xix) of the Trademark Law.


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

Trademark race for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games

The Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) refused Trademark Application No. 2016-85559 for a device mark consisting of metallic rings on goods of metallic fishing nets in class 6 on the ground of conflict with Article 4(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Metallic ring device mark

Mark in question ( see below) was filed on August 8, 2016 by designating goods of metallic fishing nets in class 6.

Article 4(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law

The JPO examiner refused the mark by citing the Olympic Rings based on Article 4(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law.
Article 4(1)(vi) is a provision to refuse any mark which is identical with, or similar to, a famous mark indicating the State, a local government, an agency thereof, a non-profit organization undertaking a business for public interest, or a non-profit enterprise undertaking a business for public interest.
JPO trademark examination guidelines clearly refer to the Olympic Symbol as an example of the mark to indicate a non-profit business for public interest.

Olympic Rings

The Olympic symbol, widely known throughout the world as the Olympic Rings, is the visual ambassador of Olympism for billions of people.
The Olympic symbol is defined in Olympic Charter, Rule 8 as

“The Olympic symbol consists of five interlaced rings of equal dimensions (the Olympic rings), used alone, in one or in five different colours. When used in its five-colour version, these colours shall be, from left to right, blue, yellow, black, green and red. The rings are interlaced from left to right; the blue, black and red rings are situated at the top, the yellow and green rings at the bottom.”

The Olympic Rings, publicly presented for the first time in 1913, remain a global representation of the Olympic movement and its activity.

Appeal Board decision

In an appeal, the Board sustained examiner’s refusal and decided the mark in question shall be refused on the same ground.
The Board stated that mark in question has same configuration with the Olympic Rings and thus consumers at the sight of the mark are likely to conceive a well-known Olympic symbol from appearance regardless of difference in small rings to connect five symbolic rings.
[Appeal case no. 2018-1590, Gazette issued date : August 31, 2018]


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