タグ: Appeal Board

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

Appeal Board reversed examiner’s rejection in the BOB trademark dispute

In an administrative appeal disputing trademark similarity between TM registration no. 5719997 for word mark “BOB” and a junior application no. 2016-49394 for the “bob” 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. 2017-10420, Gazette issued date: January 26, 2018]

 

TM Registration no. 5719997

The cited mark, consisting of a word “BOB” in standard character, was registered on November 21, 2014 by designating various items of furniture in class 20.

 

Junior Application no. 2016-49394

Applied junior mark consists of the following “bob” device mark.

It was applied for registration on May 5, 2016 by designating furniture in class 20.

As a result of substantive examination by the JPO examiner, applied mark was rejected due to a conflict with the cited mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.
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 device in dark brown, consisting of two circles protruding upward on the left side, a circle connected with the two circles in line, and wavy lines underneath.

From appearance, even if it may happen the circle design is recognized as a stylized design of “bob”, the Board opines that the design is unlikely to be considered as alphabetical letters due to a remarkable extent of stylization or abstraction. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that applied mark shall not give rise to any specific pronunciation and meaning.

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

Obviously, both marks are distinguishable in appearance. As long as applied mark does not give rise to a specific pronunciation and meaning, it is meaningless to compare the pronunciation and meaning of both marks. Consequently, the Board finds no ground to affirm examiner’s rejection from visual, phonetic, and conceptual point of view.

Astonishingly, JPO considered the bob device mark is unreadable.

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

It is just a 3D shape of electronic baccarat shoe, or trademark?

In a lawsuit disputing adequacy of decision by the JPO Appeal Board (Appeal case no. 2015-907) to refuse the applied 3D mark (TM2014-5943, class 28), consisting of a three-dimensional shape of electronic baccarat shoe with the program enabling to reduce the chance of foreign cards and eliminate dealer mistakes, due to lack of  distinctiveness and secondary meaning, the IP High Court sustained the decision being appealed.
[Case no. Heisei28(Gyo-ke)10266,  Decision date: September 27, 2017]

Inherent distinctiveness of the 3D shape

Plaintiff, a Japanese manufacturer and distributor of the ANGEL EYE electronic baccarat shoe, asserted that the 3D shape of ANGEL EYE, being the first products in the industry, is not an essential shape to make it free for public use since no competitors have dealt with same type of product other than plaintiff so far. Besides, a fact that the 3D shape has been registered in the legal gambling countries, e.g. US, EU, AU, RU, Malaysia and NZ, will rather bolster necessity to allow exclusive right on the shape.

However, the Court opposed to plaintiff. “It is inadequate to allow plaintiff to use the 3D shape exclusively. Applied 3D mark can be perceived objectively as a general shape of electronic baccarat shoe aimed to fulfill its original function and produce aesthetic image. If so, it may disorder a fair marketplace to allow exclusive use to plaintiff just because of a first-to-file. A mere fact of trademark registrations in countries where the ANGEL EYE has been distributed is insufficient to admit trademark registration in our nation since the goods is yet to be distributed in Japan.” Accordingly, the Court refused Applied 3D mark based on Article 3(1)(iii).

 

Secondary meaning of Applied 3D mark

Plaintiff argued Applied 3D mark has already served to function as a source indicator by means of substantial use of the mark sine 2005. Plaintiff exported 11,481 units (sale proceeds: 2.7 billion yen) over the lase decade and has achieved 90 % market share in Macau, the world’s largest casino gambling hub.

In this respect, the Court ruled in favor of the JPO. As plaintiff admits, the shoe has not been manufactured for domestic use. Any evidence suggesting a high degree of recognition to Applied 3D mark in foreign countries is neither relevant nor persuasive. Unless plaintiff demonstrates that domestic consumers have become aware of such recognition, it is groundless to find Applied 3D mark would satisfy requisite of secondary meaning based on Article 3(2) of the Japan Trademark Law.

The case raises a question: What is a role of the Trademark Law where applied mark, being registered in foreign nations,  confronts with an insuperable refusal attributable to legal restrictions on domestic use of the mark?
Unsuccessful domestic registration prevents domestic company from utilizing the Madrid Protocol and protecting his/her vital brands on the global market in an effective and economical manner.  

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

Chemical Equation can function as a trademark?

The Appeal Board of JPO dismissed examiner’s rejection and admitted registration of a below mark appearing to be a chemical equation in association with the goods of alcoholic beverages, namely, distilled rice spirits, fruit wines, sake substitute, Japanese white liquor, Sake, Chinese liquors, Japanese Shochu-based beverages, Naoshi [Japanese liquor], Flavored tonic liquors, Japanese sweet rice-based mixed liquor, and western liquors in class 33. [Appeal case no. 2016-17500]

[Mark in question]

Initial examination

At an initial examination, the JPO examiner refused the mark [TM application no. 2015-111054] based on Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law by concluding that the mark, representing a chemical equation to generate ethyl alcohol(C2H5OH) and carbon dioxide(CO2) from glucose(C6H12O6) as a whole, can be perceived as a mere indication to appeal the goods produced by alcoholic fermentation in the mind of consumers with an ordinary care when used on alcoholic beverages in class 33.

Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law

Article 3(1)(vi) is a comprehensive provision aiming 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.

Baord decision

In the meantime, the Appeal Board stated that ordinary consumers were unlikely to perceive the mark as chemical equation to represent alcoholic fermentation generated from glucose. Besides, there find no circumstance to show the chemical equation has been used frequently as a result of ex officio investigation. Thus, it is groundless to conclude the chemical equation lacks inherent distinctiveness in association with goods of class 33. Provided that the mark does not fall under Article 3(1)(vi), the initial examination loses its ground to refuse and should be dismissed accordingly.

Apparently, the Board paid an excessive attention to circumstance whether chemical equation or chemical formula are commonly used on alcoholic beverages. Even if ordinary consumers are not accustomed to such chemical expressions, I suppose, the JPO should refrain from admitting inherent distinctiveness of the expressions since nobody will consider it as a source indicator in fact.

 

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

The Appeal Board overruled examiner decision to negate inherent distinctiveness of a mark consisting of landscape painting.

Applied mark consists of a landscape painting depicting trees, pond and semicircular wooden bridge on the precincts of a shrine as shown below.

 2014-20654

Initial refusal by JPO examiner

At initial examination, examiner rejected the applied mark based on Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law since it is apparent that average consumers with an ordinary care of apparel in class 25 recognize the mark merely indicating landscape painting of a traditional shrine and are unlikely to conceive the mark as a source indicator by taking into account of circumstance that landscape design is commonly printed on apparels, T-shirts.

Article 3(1)(vi) – Requirements for trademark registration

Any trademark to be used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant may be registered, unless a trademark by which consumers are not able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.

Board decision 

In the meantime, the Appeal Board admitted inherent distinctiveness of the landscape painting on the grounds that mandatory survey failed to reveal a fact to convince the applied mark itself is used on T-shirt in general.

Thus, even if it becomes common to print landscape design on T-shirts admittedly, as long as the applied landscape has not been used on apparel too often, it is rather reasonable to conclude that the applied mark is deemed inherently distinctive as a source indicator of apparel. Consequently, the examiner decision should be overruled [Fufuku2015-7412].

 

In my opinion, it is doubtful whether average consumers at a glance of apparel are able to distinguish a landscape painting serving as source indicator from non-distinctive landscape paintings. Furthermore, with respect to the landscape in question, similar landscape can be seen often at historical shrines or temples in our country.