GREENNOTE

Make-up powder; toilet water; cosmetic creams; cosmetic rouges; lipsticks; cosmetic preparations for baths; hair care preparations; hair oils; hair dyes; hair creams; hair treatments; hair rinses [shampoo-conditioners]; eye shadows; bath oils; bath salts; hair colorants; sunscreen preparations; cosmetic preparations for skin care; anti-perspirants; deodorants for human beings; creamy foundation; soaps and detergents; shampoos; oils for cosmetic purposes; perfume and flavour materials; and incense in class 3

The applied-for-trademark consists of the letter string ”GREENNOTE” in Roman letters. The letter string does not have any specific meaning. Thus, it is difficult to say that the applied-for-trademark would be directly and specifically recognized as indication of quality and other such characteristics in fields of the designated goods.

 The appeal examiners did not find that the letter string ”GREENNOTE” has been commonly adopted and used as indications of quality in trading in connection with the designated goods of the applied-for-trademark through ex-officio searches. In addition, the appeal examiners did not find any circumstances to say that traders and consumers of the above designated goods would consider ”GREENNOTE” as indications of quality. 

With the above in mind, it is unreasonable to say that the applied-for-trademark consists solely of a mark indicating quality in a common manner. It could be a distinguishing trademark. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to say that it is likely to mislead as to quality of the goods. 

Thus, the refusal decision in the examination stage should be withdrawn.

The examiner pointed out that “GREENNOTE” has been used broadly in order to mean “a scent of green leaves” in the related fields of the designated goods in the office action in the examination stage. 

The applicant deleted the designated goods “liquid perfumes” in the appeal stage because it seems that all the articles referred by the examiner in the refusal decision in the examination stage relate to liquid perfumes. The applicant argued that the applied-for-trademark should be considered distinguishing also because the designated goods “liquid perfumes” were deleted.