JPO: Is “writing a Word Mark in cursive script” a good method in order to prevent the Examiner’s decision of confusion with prior registered Word Marks (not-stylized)? ANOTHER CASE
November 16, 2023
Trademark Attorney Katsuhisa SAKUMA (Mr.)
Appeal No. 2022-7113 (JP Trademark Appl. No. 2021-70414)
The Examiner has judged that the applied mark is similar to cited mark . Additionally, the designated goods of the cited mark include the designated goods of the applied mark. Thus, the Examiner has issued a decision of refusal against the applied mark.
The trial Examiners for the appeal have judged that the Examiner’s judgement is wrong.
|Date of Decision||
October 31, 2022
(the applied mark)
(the cited mark: JP Reg. No. 6343290)
|Designated Goods and Class||
(Applied Mark: JP Appl. No. 2021-70414)
(Cited Mark: JP Reg. No. 6343290)
|Summary of Judgement||
The applied mark does not consist of English characters in cursive script; rather, it is a kind of figure.
The applied mark does not have a specific sound.
The applied mark does not have a specific concept.
In view of the above, the applied mark is not similar to the cited mark. Therefore, the trial Examiners for the appeal have withdrawn the Examiner’s judgement, namely, the decision of refusal against the applied mark based on the grounds that the applied mark is similar to the cited mark.
For the applied or registered mark that consists of alphabetical characters written in cursive script, if the design level of such script is quite high (that is, if it is difficult to recognize that such script consists of alphabetical characters), the JPO will handle the script as a kind of figure.