カテゴリー: Likelihood of confusion

Adidas unsuccessful in an attempt to prevent trademark protection for two-stripes

The Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) held in an opposition filed by Adidas AG that trademark registration no. 6016240 for two-stripes device (Opposed mark) shall remain as valid as ever and entirely dismissed Adidas’ claims based on its famous three stripes.[Opposition case no. 2018-900100, Gazette issued on August 30, 2019]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark (see below) was applied for registration on June 16, 2016 over shoes in class 25 by Marubeni Footwear, a Japanese business entity, and published for registration on February 27, 2018.

Opposition by Adidas

On April 24, 2018, Adidas AG filed an opposition and argued opposed mark is revocable under Article 4(1)(vii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law in relation to its famous three stripes (see below).

Article 4(1)(vii)

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

Trademark Examination Guidelines set forth criteria for the article and examples.
Among others, “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.”

Based on a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity to Adidas three stripes, opponent asserted, applicant must have been aware of Adidas three stripes and filed opposed mark with a malicious intention to take advantage of the reputation and credit of opponent’s famous trademark and impair the goodwill embodied on its iconic three stripes.

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.

Adidas argued that, from appearance, opposed mark evidently gives rise to a same impression with Adidas three stripes since each stripe of the mark is depicted in the same direction, width and shape, besides a space between stripe also has the same width with the stripe.

Given opponent mark has been substantially used in various colors, length, and configurations, average consumers with an ordinary care of shoes who have been quite familiar with Adidas are likely to associate opposed mark with Adidas’ three-stripes. Inter alia, when each stripe of opposed mark is used in different color on side upper sole and a space between the stripes (upper sole fabric) has other color, and thus opposed mark looks like depicting three stripes on shoes, it is highly anticipated that relevant consumers would confuse its source with opponent.

Opposition decision

The Opposition Board admitted a high degree of reputation and popularity to Adidas three stripes in relation to sport shoes, sportswear, sports gear at the time of initial filing and registration of opposed mark.

In the meantime, the Board found a low degree of originality of three stripes and similarity between the marks, from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view since opposed mark can be clearly perceived as ‘two-stripes’. Even if Adidas three stripes has acquired remarkable reputation, average consumers of sports shoes would not mistake two stripes for three stripes in purchasing shoes with opposed mark.
If so, the Board believes it is unlikely that relevant consumers confuse or associate opposed mark with Adidas.

The Board also negated opponent’s allegation of a possible ‘three-stripes’ appearance under specific color combination by stating that opposed mark is nothing but a two-stripes design mark. The space in between two stripes does not constitute opposed mark. If so, the allegation shall be irrelevant to the case.

Besides, from the produced evidences, the Board found it was not foreseen a circumstance to offend public order and morals from registering opposed mark and give harmful effect to the international faith.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded opposed mark shall not be revocable under Article 4(1)(vii) as well as (xv) and granted registration a status quo.

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

PUMA’s Fight Against Logo Parody

On August 1, 2019, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to invalidate trademark registration no. 5861923 for composite mark consisting of a word “KUMA”, which means ‘bear’ in Japanese, and the bear device by finding a likelihood of confusion with a world-renowned sports brand, PUMA and detrimental effect to public policy or morality.
[Invalidation case no. 2019-890001]

KUMA device mark

Disputed mark (see below) was filed on January 7, 2016 by a Japanese business entity in Hokkaido, Japan’s most northerly main island, an otherworldly volcanic land with eastern Asia’s highest concentration of brown bears, over various goods in class 25 including sportswear and shoes.

Precedently, applicant applied for registration of following trademarks, consist of four alphabets in bold font and an animal silhouette facing left depicted in the upper right of the alphabets, on goods in classes 9, 14, 16, 24, 25 and 28, but in vain.

“UUMA” means ‘horse’, “BUTA” means ‘pig’, “KUMA” means ‘bear’ in Japanese. It is obvious that both literal element and figurative element of respective mark give rise to a same meaning, which is the same for PUMA.

It is likely the applicant intended to use these marks on souvenirs from Hokkaido since we get accustomed to see scenes at a famous tourist spot that T-shirts and other small items displayed at gift shops parody famous brands by featuring local specialty to attract tourists for fun.

PUMA’s Opposition / Invalidation Trial

On September 26, 2016, PUMA SE filed an opposition against the KUMA mark based on Article 4(1)(vii) and 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law. PUMA argued relevant consumers or traders are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of disputed mark with PUMA when used on designated goods in class 25 because of a high reputation and close resemblance between PUMA logo and the KUMA mark.

The Opposition Board admitted a high degree of popularity and reputation of PUMA logo, however, the Board dismissed the opposition entirely due to unlikelihood of confusion as a result of low degree of similarity between the marks (Opposition case no. 2016-900308).

Subsequently, PUMA SE entrusted the case to MARKS IP LAW FIRM. On New Year’s Eve of 2018, MARKS IP LAW FIRM on behalf of PUMA SE requested for an invalidation trial and sought to annul the KUMA mark on the same grounds.

Invalidation Decision

The Invalidation Board reversed the opposition decision and decided in favor of PUMA by finding that:

  1. PUMA logo has been continuously famous as a source indicator of PUMA in connection with sports shoes, sportswear and others among relevant consumers and traders in Japan.
  2. Configuration of PUMA logo looks unique, creative, and impressive in itself.
  3. Regardless of visual difference in detail between the marks, overall impression of both marks is quite similar.
  4. Given close association between designated goods in class 25 and PUMA business, relevant consumers of the goods with an ordinary care are likely to confuse its source with PUMA
  5. Besides, it is presumed the current registrant of disputed mark was knowingly assigned a similar KUMA mark that applicant had a fraudulent intent to free-ride and dilute PUMA’s goodwill.
  6. If so, current registrant must have filed disputed mark with a fraudulent intention to dilute or do harm to PUMA’s goodwill given a close resemblance of between disputed mark and a rejected KUMA mark (see above right).

Based on the foregoing, the JPO decided to invalidate disputed marks based on Article 4(1)(xv) as well as 4(1)(vii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

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

Trademark Opposition: “VISA” vs. “V-ISA”

The Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by a global payments technology company, Visa International Service Association (VISA) against trademark registration no. 6077944 for a word mark “V-ISA” due to unlikelihood of confusion with VISA’s famous service mark “VISA”.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900365, Gazette issued date: July 26, 2019]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark, consisting of a word mark “V-ISA” in standard character, was filed in the name of Machine Vision Lighting Inc., a Japanese company deploying in business field of lighting apparatus.

The mark was filed to JPO on November 3, 2017. Going through substantive examination, JPO admitted registration over the goods of “lighting apparatus” in class 11 and published for opposition on October 2, 2018.

Opposition by VISA

To oppose the mark, Visa International Service Association filed an opposition on December 3, 2018.

VISA argued that opponent has use the mark “VISA” since 1976 as a tradename of credit card company and unquestionably it has become famous in Japan as source indicator of opponent business. Besides, opposed mark “V-ISA” gives rise to a pronunciation ‘viː.zə’ just like with “VISA”. Therefore, both marks are identical or similar in phonetic and visual point of view. Nowadays, in the age of global e-commerce, consumers are accustomed to purchase various goods and services by means of credit card payment. Under the circumstance, opponent business gets all the more associated with a wide variety of goods or service traded via e-commerce. If so, relevant consumers and traders of lighting apparatus are likely to confuse opposed mark with famous service mark “VISA”.

Accordingly, VISA alleged that opposed mark “V-ISA” shall be retroactively cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(xv)

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 users’ benefits.

Board decision

The Opposition Board did not question a remarkable degree of popularity and reputation of mark “VISA” in relation to credit card payment as a source indicator of opponent business.

In the meantime, the Board emphasized the term “VISA” is not a coined word, having its original meaning as an official mark, usually made in a passport, that allows you to enter or leave a particular country. Besides, the Board considered both marks are distinctively dissimilar by stating that:

From appearance, even if opposed mark “V-ISA” consists of the same literal elements with opponent mark “VISA”, they are visually distinguishable because of a hyphen (-).

Opposed mark just gives rise to pronunciation of ‘vui-isa’ or ‘vui-ai-esu-ei”. If so, the pronunciations are clearly dissimilar to ‘viː.zə’ of opponent mark.

Given opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning, both marks are not comparable in concept.

Since “lighting apparatus” in class 11 is obviously dissimilar to and less associated with opponent business, relevant consumers with an ordinary care would not conceive of opponent mark at the sight of opposed mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that relevant consumers and traders are unlikely to confuse opposed mark with VISA or any business entity systematically or economically connected with opponent.

Thus, opposed mark shall not be cancelled based on Article 4(1)(xv), and remains valid as a status quo.

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

Patagonia Victorious in Trademark Battle

The Trial Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently upheld an invalidation petition by US outdoor apparel company, Patagonia Inc. against TM Reg. no. 6028801 for the “royalwest” mark in combination with figurative elements due to a likelihood of confusion with Patagonia logo.
[Invalidation case no. 2018-890048, Gazette issue date: June 28, 2019]

TM Registration no.6028801

Disputed mark, consisting of a word “royalwest” and figurative elements (see below left), was applied for registration on April 13, 2017 in respect of apparels and other goods in class 25.

Without confronting with a refusal during substantive examination, disputed mark was registered on March 23, 2018.

Petition for invalidation

Japan Trademark Law provides a provision to retroactively invalidate trademark registration for certain restricted reasons specified under Article 46 (1).

US outdoor apparel company Patagonia Incorporated filed a petition for invalidation against disputed mark on June 29, 2018. Patagonia argued it shall be invalidated due to similarity to an owned senior trademark registration no. 5891980 for the Patagonia mark with figurative elements depicting mountain landscape and sky in blue, purple and orange color (see above right), and a likelihood of confusion with its famous brand when used on designated goods in class 25 based on Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Law.

Board decision

At the outset, the Board admitted the Patagonia logo has acquired a high degree of popularity and reputation as a source indicator of Patagonia Inc. among relevant consumers in connection with outdoor goods.

In assessing similarity of both marks, the Board found that a literal element of respective mark is unquestionably dissimilar. However, even if both marks give rise to a different pronunciation and concept, by taking account of similar factors: (1) coloring of the sky, (2) font design and size, (3) rectangular outline, (4) black silhouette with a white border line, (5) configuration and proportion of respective elements, and balancing them comprehensively, relevant consumers with an ordinary care at the sight of both marks would conceive a same impression from appearance and associate disputed mark with Patagonia. If so, it is obvious that visual similarity plays a key role in the assessment. A phonetic and conceptual difference arising from literal element is insufficient to negate similarity between the marks in its entirety.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that, from totality of circumstances and evidences, relevant traders or consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of disputed mark with Patagonia or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent when used on apparels and any other designated goods in class 25 and declared invalidation based on Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv).

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

Trademark Opposition: “iPhone” versus “SAIPHONE”

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by the U.S. tech giant, Apple Inc. against trademark registration no. 6060316 for word mark “SAIPHONE” in class 9 and 18 by finding less likelihood of confusion with Apple “iPhone”.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900255]

“SAIPHONE”

Opposed mark, a word mark “SAIPHONE” in standard character, was filed by a Japanese business entity, STYLE Corporation, on September 28, 2017 by designating ‘mobile phones, smart phones, and its accessories, namely cases, covers and hands-free holders’ in class 9, and ‘purses and wallets, commutation-ticket holders, business card cases, bags and pouches, umbrellas, industrial packaging containers of leather’ in class 25.

STYLE Corporation promotes the “SAIPHONE” leather cases for iPhone (see below).

The JPO admitted registration on June 22, 2018 and published for registration on July 6, 2018.

APPLE’s Opposition

To oppose against registration within a statutory period of two months counting from the publication date, Apple Inc. with AIPHONE Co., Ltd., as a joint claimant, filed an opposition on September 7, 2018.

In the opposition brief, Apple Inc. asserted the opposed mark shall be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law given a remarkable reputation of opponent mark “iPhone” in the business field of smart phones and similarity to a senior trademark registration no. 5147866 for the word mark “iPhone” in standard character over mobile phones in class 9 effective since 2008.

Interestingly, “iPhone” is indeed a registered trademark owned by AIPHONE Co., Ltd. in Japan. Apple Inc. is an exclusive licensee of the mark.

Apple Inc. argued opposed mark “SAIPHONE” gives rise to a confusingly similar pronunciation and appearance to “iPhone”, since opposed mark contains a famous mark “iPhone” entirely and a mere difference on prefix “SA” is insufficient for relevant consumers anything but to conceive “iPhone” from opposed mark.

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.

Board Decision

The Opposition Board admitted a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity of opponent trademark “Apple” in connection with smart phones based on the produced evidences showing a more than 40% share of the market in Japan.

In the meantime, the Board found “SAIPHONE” and “iPhone” are totally dissimilar since they are sufficiently distinguishable in visual, phonetic, and conceptual point of view.
A fact that opposed mark contains “iPhone” is not persuasive on the case since relevant consumers with an ordinary case would see opposed mark in its entirety.
If so, it is likely that the consumers confuse or misconceive a source of the opposed mark with Apple Inc. or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the opposed mark shall not be cancelled on the grounds of Article 4(1)(xi) as well as (xv).

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

JPY 71 Million Damages Award Against Design Copycat of BAO BAO ISSEY MIYAKE

In a civil legal battle involving design copycat of luxurious “BAO BAO” bags designed by ISSEY MIYAKE, a Japanese fashion designer, the Tokyo District Court sided with ISSEY MIYAKE and found infringement under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act on June 18, 2019.
[Judicial case no. H29(Gyo-wa)31572]

BAO BAO ISSEY MIYAKE

Issey Miyake’s innovative and unique bag designs under the brand of “BAO BAO” since 2010 earned it accolades and wide recognition in the fashion world. Its most prominent design is crafted with a tessellating triangular structure that shifts as it’s moved to create new three-dimensional forms. Capturing a seamless fusion of geometric shapes and fluid silhouettes, the designs are often a kaleidoscope of color. Most of the pieces consist of rectangular equilateral triangle.

Disputed bags

Defendant, Largu Co., Ltd. began to promote following women’s shoulder bags, pouches, backpacks and tote bags under the brand of “Avancer” from 2016. Defendant copied tessellating triangular structure on disputed bags likewise. Most of the pieces are not rectangular equilateral triangle.

Defendant sold these goods for JPY 1,000 ~ 6,000. It was far cheaper than BAO BAO ISSEY MIYAKE – sometimes up to one-thirteenth.

Court decision

In the judgment, at the outset, the court assessed whether the geometric shapes of tessellating triangular structure shall play a role of source indicator protectable under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. The judge found the shape of plaintiff’s goods has a distinctive and different feature from other women’s bags by taking account of produced evidences. Its unique and innovative design, inter alia, creating various three-dimensional forms when used, apparently gives unusual impression to consumers. If so, the prominent design consisting of triangular structure shall be protectable under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Besides, the court found the triangular structure of plaintiff’s goods obtained a certain degree of popularity and reputation as a source indicator of BAO BAO ISSEY MYAKE by the time defendant launched disputed bags in 2016.

In assessing a likelihood of confusion, the court dismissed defendant’s counterargument on different shape of triangle by stating that disputed goods give rise to a same visual effect with BAO BAO ISSEY MIYAKE by means of creating various three-dimensional forms when used. Price difference is not a material factor to negate a likelihood of confusion as long as consumers conceive BAO BAO ISSEY MIYAKA at the sight of disputed bags.

After significant litigation, the trade dress suit ended with an injunction barring all future sales of the copied designs and a hefty damages award, JPY 71,068,000 under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

In the meantime, the court dismissed plaintiff’s allegation of copyright infringement on the ground that plaintiff’s goods are rather suitable for industrial design. In fact, plaintiff’s goods are produced in quantity at factory. If so, it shall be unprotectable under the Copyright Law.

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

Boeing Wins 777 Trademark Victory

The Trial Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently upheld The Boeing Company’s invalidation petition against TM Reg. no. 5990529 for the “PACHINKO&SLOT AIRPORT 777” mark in respect of amusement services in class 41 due to a likelihood of confusion with Boeing’s famous jet airliner “777”. [Invalidation case no. 2018-890054, Gazette issue date: May 31, 2019]

AIRPORT 777

Mark in dispute, consisting of three terms, “PACHINKO&SLOT” and “AIRPORT777” in English and Japanese in three lines, and a device of jet airliner (see below), was applied for registration by SEA Co., Ltd., a Japanese business entity, on February 17, 2017 in respect of providing Pachinko and slot machine parlors, game services provided online from a computer network or mobile phone; providing amusement facilities and other services in class 41.
Opposed mark “AIRPORT 777”
SEA CO., Ltd. has been operating pachinko and slot machine parlors in the name of AIRPORT 777.
Pachinko& Slot Airport 777
Without confronting with a refusal during substantive examination, the AIRPORT 777 mark was registered on October 20, 2017.

Petition for Invalidation

Japan Trademark Law provides a provision to retroactively invalidate trademark registration for certain restricted reasons specified under Article 46 (1). The Boeing Company, the world’s largest American aerospace company and leading manufacturer of commercial jetliners, defense, space and security systems, and service provider of aftermarket support, filed a petition for invalidation against opposed mark on July 17, 2018. Boeing argued the AIRPORT 777 mark shall be invalidated due to a likelihood of confusion with “777” The Boeing 777 when used on above designated services in class 41 based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law. The Boeing 777 is the world’s largest twin-engine jet airliner, first flown in June of 1994. Commonly referred to as the ‘Triple Seven,’ the 777 is Boeing’s first fly-by-wire airliner (an electronic system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft) and the first commercial aircraft entirely computer-designed. In Japan, Boeing has successfully registered three digits “777” in respect of jet airliners in class 12 since 2001. Trademark Registration no. 4456004 (see below).
Japan TM Registration no. 4456004

Board decision

The Board admitted that the “777” mark has acquired a high degree of popularity and reputation as a source indicator of Boeing jetliners among relevant consumers. In assessment of the similarity between two marks, at the outset the Board found that three digits 777 implies a meaning of wining jackpot in association with pachinko and slot machines. However, by taking account of a term “AIRPORT” and a silhouette of jet airliner, the Board considered it is likely that relevant consumers with an ordinary care shall connect or associate the services using opposed mark with The Boeing 777. If so, it is unquestionable that opposed mark is highly similar to a famous mark “777”. Besides, since recent game and amusement industry have a trend to introduce flight and airplane games with new technology or to use images, video and sounds of jet airliner, it is not unreasonable to find above services in class 41 are closely related to jet airliners. In view of Boeing’s business portfolio, it is highly predictable that The Boeing Company expands the business and launches amusement business. Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that, from totality of circumstances and evidences, relevant traders or consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of opposed mark with Boeing or any entity systematically or economically connected with the opponent and declared invalidation based on Article 4(1)(xv).
Masaki MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

Apple Inc. Defeated in Trademark case over the name ‘MAC’ in Japan

The Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by the U.S. tech giant, Apple Inc. against trademark registration no. 5986073 for a word mark “Face2Mac” due to unlikelihood of confusion with Apple’s famous trademark “Mac”.
[Opposition case no. 2018-900002, Gazette issued date: May 31, 2019]

Opposed mark

Opposed mark, consisting of a word mark “Face2MAC” in standard character, was filed in the name of Allied Telesis Holdings K.K., a Japanese company deploying in business field of network devices and cyber securities.

The mark was filed to JPO on January 31, 2017 and admitted registration on October 6, 2017 over the goods of “computer software; telecommunication machines and apparatus; electronic machines and apparatus; network cameras” in class 9, and other services in class 37, 42 and 45.

Opposition by Apple Inc.

During a two-months opposition period after registration, Apple Inc. filed an opposition.

Apple argued that opposed mark “Face2Mac” shall be retroactively cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law since opposed mark contains (i) a famous trademark “Mac” of Apple Inc. and (ii) a term “Face” which reminds consumers of Apple’s well-known mark “FaceID” and “FACETIME”. If so, relevant consumers and traders are likely to confuse or misconceive opposed mark with Apple or any business entity systematically or economically connected with opponent.

Article 4(1)(xv)

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 users’ benefits.

Board decision

The Opposition Board did not question a remarkable degree of popularity and reputation of trademark “Mac” as an abbreviated source indicator of opponent’s personal computers ‘Macintosh’.

In the meantime, the Board considered both marks distinctively give rise to a different impression in the minds of relevant consumers from visual, phonetical and conceptual points of view. Besides, the Board emphasized the term “MAC” is commonly used as an abbreviation to indicate ‘Media Access Control’ in business field of computers and telecommunications. According to produced evidences by opponent, Apple Inc. has continuously used the mark “Mac” with a big ‘M’ and small letters ‘ac’, but not in a configuration of “MAC” at all. Therefore, it is rather presumed that relevant consumers at the sight of opposed mark shall conceive of media access control from “Face2MAC”, than Apple’s famous trademark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that relevant consumers of goods in question are unlikely to confuse opposed mark with Apple Inc. or any business entity systematically or economically connected with opponent.

Thus, opposed mark is not subject to Article 4(1)(x), and valid as a status quo.

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

Trademark dispute over Shogun Emblem of the Samurai Era

In a recent appeal trial over trademark dispute, the Trademark Appeal Board within the Japan Patent Office (JPO) overturned the Examiner’s determination and held that a combination mark with Tokugawa crest image and literal elements written in Chinese characters is dissimilar to, and unlikely to cause confusion with a senior trademark registration for the “TOKUGAWA CREST” device mark in connection with pickled plums of class 29.
[Appeal case no. 2018-6893, Gazette issue date: March 29, 2019]

 

TOKUGAWA CREST

The Tokugawa clan was the family that established the Edo shogunate, also known as the Tokugawa shogunate, (1603–1867), the final period of traditional Japan, a time of internal peace, political stability, and economic growth under the shogunate (military dictatorship) founded by Tokugawa Ieyasu. The Tokugawa shogunate continued to rule Japan for a remarkable 250 years and ended in 1868, with the Meiji Restoration when the Emperor regained power.

The Tokugawa crest was a circle in closing three leaves of the awoi (a species of mallow, found in Central Japan) joined at the tips, the stalks touching the circle (see below).

This gilded trefoil is gleaming on the property of the shogun and mausoleum even now in Japan.

 

YUME-AWOI

Kabushiki Kaisha Kiwa-Nouen Products, a Japanese merchant dealing with plums and its products filed a trademark application for a combination mark with Tokugawa crest image and literal elements written in Chinese characters (see below) covering pickled plums in class 29 on June 21, 2016 [TM application no. 2016-72127].

Three Chinese characters “紀州梅” in the upper right of the mark lacks distinctive since the term means plums made in Kishu, the name of a province in feudal Japan (the area corresponds to nowadays Wakayama Prefecture and southern Mie Prefecture), as a whole. Two characters “夢葵” in the center of the mark to be pronounces as “yume-awoi” is obviously a coined word and distinctive in relation to pickled plums.

The mark is actually in use on high-class pickled plums produced by applicant.

Tokugawa Museum

Going through substantive examination by the JPO examiner, applied mark was totally refused registration based on Article 4(1)(vi), (vii), (xv) of the Trademark Law on the ground that the mark contains a device resembling the Tokugawa crest which becomes famous as a source indicator of ‘Public Interest Incorporated Foundation The Tokugawa Museum’.
If so, using the mark on the designated goods by an unauthorized entity may free-ride goodwill vested in the Tokugawa crest and anything but conductive to the public interest. Besides, relevant consumers are likely to confuse or misconceive pickled plums using applied mark with goods from The Tokugawa Museum or any business entity systematically or economically connected with the museum.

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.

Article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law prohibits any mark likely to cause damage to public order or morality from registration.

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 users’ benefits.

 

Applicant filed an appeal against the refusal on May 21, 2018 and argued dissimilarity of the marks.

 

Appeal Board decision

The Board reversed the examiner’s refusal and admitted applied mark to registration by stating that:

It becomes trade practice to print family crest on the packaging of food products. Especially, trefoil awoi crest has been commonly used on the packaging of specialty products or souvenir from Aichi (Owari), Wakayama (Kishu) and Ibaragi (Mito) Prefectures where descendants from clan founder Tokugawa Ieyasu’s three youngest sons governed during the Edo shogunate. Besides, from appearance, Tokugawa crest image in applied mark looks like a background pattern and thus relevant consumers are unlikely to aware that the pattern serves the legally defined role of a trademark because the image is colored washier than literal elements. If so, two Chinese characters “夢葵” of the mark functions primarily as a source indicator.

Based on the foregoing, the Board considered, given the Tokugawa crest image in the applied mark does not play a role of source indicator at all, both marks are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion from visual, phonetic and conceptual points of view even if the Tokugawa crest becomes famous as a source indicator of Public Interest Incorporated Foundation The Tokugawa Museum in fact. Likewise, the Board found no specific reason to cause damage to public order or morality from applied mark.

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

Giorgio Armani defeated with trademark battle over V-shaped wing device

In a recent administrative trademark decision , the Opposition Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Giorgio Armani S.p.A against trademark registration no. 5983697 for V-shaped wing device mark on bags in class 18 due to unlikelihood of confusion.

[Opposition case no. 2017-900384, Gazette issued date: April 26, 2019]

Opposed mark

Disputed mark (see below) was applied for registration on April 24, 2017, by designating bags, wallets, suitcases, hang bags, backpacks and others of class 18 in the name of a Chinese individual.

Going through substantive examination at the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the mark was registered on September 29 of that year (TM Reg no. 5983697).

 

Armani Opposition

To oppose the mark, Giorgio Amani filed an opposition on December 22, 2017.
In the opposition brief, Armani contended that opposed mark is confusingly similar to its registered famous V-shaped wing logo in the shape of “V” letter (see below) by citing its owned IR no. 695685 and thus shall be cancelled in violation of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) 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) prohibits to register a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with a business of other entity.
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

To my surprise, the Opposition Board of JPO negated a certain degree of popularity and reputation of Armani V-shaped wing device mark – Armani logo, 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, opposed mark is unlikely to give rise to any specific meaning and pronunciation as well as cited mark.If so, both marks would not be comparable from visual and conceptual points of view. By taking into consideration of above fact findings, the Board found dissimilarity of both marks and held less likelihood of confusion between the marks even if used on bags in class 18.
Based on the foregoing, the Board decided opposed mark is not subject to Article 4(1)(xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Trademark Law and dismissed the opposition totally.