Rejection 2024- 11703 (JP Appl. No. 2023-065111)

The applied-for-trademark consists of letter string “ECO PARTNER” in standard characters. “ECO” is a word meaning “environment” or “ecology”. “PARTNER” is a word meaning “an associate (in an activity)” or “collaborator”. Both are well-known, simple English words.

Local governments, companies, etc. have been certifying businesses, organizations, or individuals that cooperate in environmental protection efforts as “ECO PARTNERS in katakana” recently. We see that companies are promoting their certification as such “ECO PARTNERS in katakana” in advertising and conducting business in various industries.

Further, the wording “ECO PARTNER in katakana” is also used in advertisements and corporate philosophies to express the idea of working together with customers on environmental protection in various industries.

With the above in mind, it is reasonable to say that consumers would not recognize the applied-for-trademark as a distinguishing mark in connection with the designated goods/services because “ECO PARTNER” can be easily recognized as advertisements or corporate philosophies meaning “those who cooperate with environmental protection efforts.”

Thus, the applied-for-trademark should not be registered.

The applicant argued that the applied-for trademark is fully able to function as a distinguishing mark because it is not possible to find any facts that any identical/similar marks to the applied-for trademark have been used in the designated goods/services or related fields.

However, “ECO PARTNER” has been used for indicating advertising, corporate philosophies, etc. in various industries. Further, various industries, including the fields of the designated goods/services of the applied-for trademark, are working on environmental protection. With the above in mind, the appeal examiners judged that it is reasonable to say that the applied-for trademark should be considered advertising, corporate philosophies, etc. in the fields of the designated goods/services of the applied-for trademark as well and that the applied-for trademark lacks distinctiveness.