カテゴリー: Figurative mark

HISAMITSU unsuccessful in registering a shape of “Salonpas”

The Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) disallowed registration of a shape of famous Japanese pain relief patches in the name of “Salonpas” manufactured by Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. due to lack of inherent distinctiveness in relation to poultices, class 10. [Appeal case no. 2017-12694]

Salonpas

Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. filed a trademark application for a shape of Over-The-Counter Topical Pain Patch known for “Salonpas” (see below) by designating pharmaceutical preparations, gauze for dressings, bandages for dressings, adhesive plasters and other goods in class 5 [TM application no. 2015-7479].

Salonpas is a product of Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical, a company whose history dates back to the mid-1800s. Salonpas was introduced in 1934 and was first distributed in Asia. The FDA approved the Salonpas Pain Relief Patch for the US market in 2008. Approximately 20 billion Salonpas transdermal patches have been sold in the last 20 years. Salonpas has been acknowledged as World’s No.1 OTC Topical Analgesics in patch format.

 

JPO Examination

The JPO examiner totally refused the application based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law stating that the applied mark can be easily seen as a shape of poultices and the shape does solely consist of a common configuration to achieve the basic function of poultices. If so, the applied mark lacks distinctiveness as a source indicator.

Article 3(1)(iii) is a provision to prohibit any mark from registering where the mark solely consists of elements just to indicate, in a common manner, the place of origin, place of sale, quality, raw materials, efficacy, intended purpose, quantity, shape (including shape of packages), price, the method or time of production or use.

 

To dispute the refusal, Hisamitsu filed an appeal on August 28, 2017.

 

Appeal Board’s decision

The Appeal Board, however, upheld the examiner’s decision on the ground and dismissed Hisamitsu’s allegation by stating that relevant consumers and traders shall conceive of a mere qualitative representation to indicate the shape of poultices and plasters at the sight of applied mark given similar indications are depicted on the packages of other supplier’s goods on the market (see below).

 

Based on the foregoing, the Board consequently refused to register the mark based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law.

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

Trademark race for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games – Episode 2

The Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) refused Trademark Application No. 2017-11978 for a device mark consisting of five interlaced heart shape logos for goods of clothing and footwear in class 25 because of similarity to Olympic rings based on Article 4(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Heart shape device mark

Mark in question ( see below) was filed on February 6, 2017 by designating goods of clothing, footwear, masquerade costumes, clothes for sports in class 25.

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 Olympic 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, inter alia, depicting horizontally three heart shape logos on an upper row and two on a lower row, and thus consumers at the sight of the mark are likely to conceive or connect it with a well-known Olympic symbol from appearance.
[Appeal case no. 2018-3425, Gazette issued date : December 28, 2018]

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

Serapian Loses Trademark Opposition against S device mark

The Italian-based fashion house Stefano Serapian S.r.l., known for its briefcases, handbags and purses opposed the registration in Japan of the trademark S logo owned by the Japanese company, Kabushiki Kaisha Overseas.

Opposed mark

Overseas filed an application to register S logo (see below) designating, among others, bags, purses, pouches and leather goods in class 18 on April 27, 2017. Going through substantive examination at the Japan Patent Office (JPO), it was registered on October 20 of that year (TM Reg no. 5990450).

Serapian Opposition

A trademark opposition proceeding filed on January 15, 2018, Serapian contended that opposed mark is confusingly similar to its registered famous “S” device mark (see below) by citing its owned IR no. 1117130 and thus shall be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan 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.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entity’s well-known goods or services, to the benefit of brand owner and consumers.

Theoretically, Article 4(1)(xv) is applicable to the case where a mark in question is deemed dissimilar to well-known brand, but still likely to cause confusion because of a high degree of popularity and reputation of the brand.

 

The Ruling

The Opposition Board of JPO negated a certain degree of popularity and reputation of Serapian’s “S” device mark, stating that produced materials are insufficient and non-objective to demonstrate famousness of the cited mark.

Besides, the Board found that both marks are sufficiently distinguishable from appearance in view of overall configuration. From phonetic and conceptual points of view, it is apparent that respective mark would not be perceived as an alphabetical letter ‘S’, but a geometric figure device without any specific concept and pronunciation. If so, both marks would not give rise to similar appearance, sound and meaning at all.

Even if taking account of originality of “S” device mark, as long as it remains unclear whether Serapian “S” device mark has become popular among relevant consumers in Japan, the Board had no reason to admit a likelihood of confusion.

As a conclusion, the Board decided opposed mark is not subject to Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law and dismissed the opposition accordingly.

[Opposition case no. 2018-900017, Gazette issue date December 28, 2018]

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

LUIS POULSEN Victory over trademark infringement lawsuit for Pendant Lamp Shade

On December 27, 2018, the Tokyo District Court sided with Luis Poulsen A/S, a Danish company, in a lawsuit for trademark infringement against R&M Japan Co., Ltd. who imported into Japan and sold lighting apparatus allegedly identical with or confusingly similar to a registered 3D mark in the shape of unique pendant lamp shade well-known for “PH5” and awarded damages of 4.4 million JPY. [Case no. Heisei 29(Wa)22543]

 

Luis Poulsen “PH-5”

Luis Poulsen A/S has manufactured and sold lighting apparatus with a unique lamp shape well-known for “PH-5” in Japan past four decades. The shape was successfully registered as a 3D mark by the JPO in 2016 as a result of demonstrating acquired distinctiveness of the shape as a source indicator in connection with goods of ramp shade in class 11 (see below) [Trademark registration no. 5825191].

 

Infringing product

R&M Japan, Defendant, imported into Japan and sold lighting apparatus which apparently looks identical with the shape of PH-5 (see below).

Defendant argued that the Court should dismiss the complaint in its entirely.

According to the court decision, defendant admitted to reproducing a design which has terminated its exclusive right after the lapse of statutory period and thus became public domain.

Defendant also disputed there happened no damages to plaintiff on the grounds that the company put consumers on notice to offer replica designer lighting or free generic design items in the marketplace. There exists a remarkable price gap between genuine PH-5 and defendant product. If so, claimed damages shall not be linked to defendant’s act.

 

Court decision

The Tokyo District Court ruled in favor of Luis Poulsen by stating that:

  1. It is unquestionable that infringing product constitutes trademark infringement given the same shape with registered 3D mark representing “PH-5” owned by plaintiff.
  2. Provided that the 3D shape of “PH-5” has been successfully registered as a trademark in Japan, expiration of design right shall not prevent the owner from enforcing trademark right against the shape once registered as design right.
  3. Even if infringing product was offered to sell on notice of replica designer lighting or free generic design items at a lower price than genuine PH-5, it shall not deny a fact that infringing product is likely to compete with plaintiff.

Based on the foregoing, the Court ruled that R&M Japan committed a trademark infringement and awarded Luis Poulsen 4.4 million JPYen for damages.

R&M Japan once challenged validity of trademark registration for the 3D mark of PH-5, but resulted in vain. click here.

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

Is Polaroid Photo Frame trademarked?

In a recent decision, the Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) admitted trademark registration for the Polaroid Photo Frame design mark (see below) in relation to services of photo printing, digital on-demand printing, processing of photographic films, photographic retouching (class 40).
[Appeal case no. 2017-9599, Gazette issue date: June 28, 2018]

 

Polaroid Photo Frame

Disputed mark (see below), apparently looking like Polaroid Photo Frame, was filed in the name of PLR IP Holdings, LLC, the ex-owner of the Polaroid brand and related intellectual property, by covering services of photo printing, digital on-demand printing, processing of photographic films, photographic retouching under class 40 on June 24, 2015.

As a result of substantive examination by the JPO examiner, disputed mark was refused due to a lack of inherent distinctiveness based on Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law.

Article 3(1)(vi) is a comprehensive provision to prohibit any mark lacking inherent distinctiveness from being registered.

Any trademark to be used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant may be registered, unless the trademark:
(vi)　is in addition to those listed in each of the preceding items, a trademark by which consumers are not able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.

 

Appeal Board decision

The Appeal Board sided with applicant and overruled examiner’s refusal decision by stating that the Board could not detect actual use of the applied design as a representation of shape or quality in connection with the designated services.

Besides, it is questionable to conclude that disputed mark, a combination of White Square and black rectangle, solely consists of a very simple and common sign. If so, the Board considers disputed mark is capable of serving as a source indicator so that consumers may distinguish the source with the clue of disputed mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board admitted trademark registration of the Polaroid Photo Frame device mark in class 40.

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

Aston Villa lost trademark battle over rampant lion emblem

In a trademark battle over rampant lion emblem, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Aston Villa Football Club Limited, one of the oldest and most successful football clubs in English football, holding that relevant consumers are unlikely to consider the opposed rampant lion device mark (see below) confusingly similar to Aston Villa’s club badge.
[Opposition case no. 2017-900318, Gazette issued date: June 29, 2018]

Rampant lion device mark

Opposed mark, consisting of a rampant lion device facing left, thrusting out its tongue, and extending its tail vertically, was filed on February 7, 2017 by designating clothing, shoes, sportswear and sports shoes in class 25 and other two classes (12 and 35).
JPO admitted trademark registration on July 28, 2017 [TM registration no. 5966695] and published it for opposition on August 22, 2017.

Trademark Opposition

Aston Villa Football Club Limited opposed registration based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law, asserting that opposed mark is confusingly similar to Aston Villa’s senior IR registration no. 1296488 effective in Japan for the mark of opponent’s club badge (see below).

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.

Where opposed mark is considered similar to opponent mark and designated goods of opposed mark is identical with or similar to that of opponent mark, opposed mark shall be retroactively cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xi). In this regard, since IR no. 1296488 covers clothing, footwear, replica shirts, football boots, polo shirts, shoes for sports etc. in class 25, similarity of goods is undisputable in the case.

Board decision

The Opposition Board denied similarity between the marks on the grounds that:

  1. Regardless of similarity in basic configuration of a rampant lion facing left, there exist some distinctive features in depiction of head, tongue, ear, and tail as well as length of the legs.
  2. Rampant lion has been frequently used in heraldry. Therefore, relatively the lion design will not be a material factor in the assessment of mark similarity.
  3. Opponent mark can be perceived as a crest combining “AVFC” and rampant lion design.
  4. In the meantime, opposed mark shall not give rise to a meaning of crest, and relevant consumers with an ordinary care can easily discriminate both marks from appearance due to such distinctive features and overall impression.

Accordingly, JPO sided with opposed mark and decided it shall not be cancelled based on Article 4(1)(xi) in relation to opponent mark.

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