Appeal decision report (INFINITY) | ONDA TECHNO Intl. Patent Attys.[Japan Patent Firm] | Gifu City

Appeal decision report (INFINITY) | ONDA TECHNO Intl. Patent Attys.[Japan Patent Firm] | Gifu City

Access

News & Reports

Appeal decision report (INFINITY)

June 15, 2020
Noriko Yashiro

Appeal number Rejection 2019-16346(JP Appl. No. 2018-78266) 
Case summary INFINITY is allowed to be registered because INFINITY and INFINITE are considered dissimilar. 
Date of decision May 18, 2020
Demandant (Applicant) NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
Trademark(s)

Applied-for-trademark

Cited trademark

Designated Goods and Class(es) Aerated beverage; other carbonated drinks [refreshing beverages]; fruit juices; and vegetable juices [beverages] in class 32
Judgement

(1) The applied-for trademark consists of letters “INFINITY” and the letters mean “INFINITY”.  The English word is familiar in Japan.  Thus, it is pronounced as “INFINITY” and embodies the concept of “INFINITY”.

 

(2) The cited trademark consists of letters “INFINITE”.   Although the letters mean “INFINITE” in English, the foreign word is not so familiar in Japan.  Thus, although it is pronounced as “INFINITE”, it does not embody a specific concept.

(3) Comparing the applied-for-trademark with the cited trademark, they have an initial word “INFINIT” in common.  However, it is possible to distinguish between them as a whole in appearance due to the difference of ending letters “Y” and “E”.  Thus, there is no likelihood of confusion in appearance.  Further, it is possible to distinguish between them as a whole in pronunciation due to the clear difference caused by the ending letters “TY” and “TE”.   Furthermore, there is no likelihood of confusion between them in concept because the applied-for trademark embodies the concept of “INFINITY”, while the cited trademark does not embody a specific concept. 

 

With the above in mind, it is reasonable to consider that there is no likelihood of confusion between the applied-for trademark and the cited trademark in appearance, pronunciation and concept and that they are dissimilar.

Comments

A prior registered trademark owned by the current applicant was cited in an office action.  However, this application was transferred from the prior applicant to the current applicant before a decision of refusal and the citation was overcome.