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

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

Access

News & Reports

Appeal decision report (Quick Warmer)

August 31, 2021
Noriko Yashiro

Appeal number Rejection 2020-015146 (JP Appl. No. 2019-089335)
Case summary “Quick Warmer” is allowed to be registered because it is unreasonable to say that it indicates quality and other such characteristics in fields of the designated goods.
Date of decision July 19, 2021
Demandant (Applicant) Combi Corporation
Trademark(s)

Designated Goods/Services and Class(es)

Baby wipe warmers in class 11

Judgement

The applied-for-trademark consists of the letter string “Quick Warmer” with slightly stylized characters. It is unreasonable to say that it should be perceived an indication of quality directly in fields of the designated goods, even if “Quick” means “fast” and if “Warmer” means “a person [or thing] that warms”. Rather, it is reasonable to consider that the applied-for-trademark should be perceived as a coined word.

The appeal examiners did not find that “Quick Warmer” has been commonly used in trading to indicate specific quality and other such characteristics directly in fields of the designated goods through ex-officio searches. In addition, the appeal examiners did not find any circumstances to determine that traders and consumers should perceive “Quick Warmer” as indications of quality and other such characteristics of the goods.

With the above in mind, it is unreasonable to say that the applied-for-trademark indicates quality and other such characteristics in fields of the designated goods, without considering whether it has acquired distinctiveness.

Thus, the refusal decision in the examination stage should be withdrawn.

Comments

The applicant argued that the applied-for-trademark “Quick Warmer” does not correspond to indications of “quality and other such characteristics of the goods”. In addition, the applicant argued that even if the applied-for-trademark corresponds to such indications, traders and consumers are able to recognize the goods as those pertaining to the applicant and that it has acquired distinctiveness through use because the applicant has broadly used the applied-for-trademark since 1999. However, the appeal examiners concluded that it is unreasonable to say that the applied-for-trademark indicates quality and other such characteristics in fields of the designated goods, without considering whether it has acquired distinctiveness.