The applied-for trademark “KGC” is dissimilar to the cited trademark “KCC” because there is no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks in appearance and sound, even if it is not possible to compare the trademarks in meaning.

February 29, 2024

KGC Inc.

Applied-for-trademark: KGC (Standard characters)
Cited trademark:

Designated services of the applied-for-trademark: Repair or maintenance of automobiles; and others in class 37

Designated services of the cited trademark: Repair or maintenance of automobiles; and others in class 37

(1) Applied-for-trademark:
The applied-for-trademark consists of the Roman letter string “KGC” in standard characters. The applied-for-trademark is pronounced as “K.G.C.” according to the component letters. “KGC” is considered a coined word because this letter string is not listed in dictionaries and because it is difficult to say that this letter string is familiar with a specific meaning.
Thus, the applied-for-trademark has a sound “K.G.C.” and has no specific meaning.

(2) Cited trademark:
The cited trademark consists of the Roman letter string “KCC” in horizontal writing. The cited trademark is pronounced as “K.C.C.” according to the component letters. “KCC” is considered a coined word because this letter string is not listed in dictionaries and because it is difficult to say that this letter string is familiar with a specific meaning.
Thus, the cited trademark has a sound “K.C.C.” and has no specific meaning.

(3) Comparing the applied-for-trademark and the cited trademark:
As for appearance, it is reasonable to say that there is no likelihood of confusion between the applied-for-trademark and the cited trademark because the second letter “G” of the applied-for-trademark “KGC” is clearly different from the second letter “C” of the cited trademark “KCC” in short letter structure.

As for sound, both trademarks each have six syllables (in Japanese pronunciation). The sound “G” in the middle of the applied-for-trademark “KGC” is different from “C” in the middle of the cited trademark “KCC”.
The above difference in the sound quality is clear because “C” is perceived as a clear voiceless sound and because “G” is perceived as a heavy voiced sound even if the sounds have a vowel in common.

In addition, a trademark consisting of three alphabetical letters, like the applied-for-trademark and the cited trademark, is pronounced by each letter separately rather than being pronounced in a single breath. With the above and the difference in the sound quality in mind, it is reasonable to say that it is possible to distinguish the applied-for-trademark from the cited trademark sufficiently because the difference of the sound as a whole are not small and because their overall tones and impressions are different when they are pronounced as a whole.

As for meaning, both trademarks are coined words and have no specific meaning. Thus, it is not possible to compare the applied-for trademark with the cited trademark in meaning.

Thus, it is reasonable to say that the applied-for trademark is dissimilar to the cited trademark because there is no likelihood of confusion between the applied-for-trademark and the cited trademark in appearance and sound, even if it is not possible to compare the applied-for trademark with the cited trademark in meaning.

(4) Thus, the applied-for-trademark should be registered without need to compare the designated services.

The applicant recited some appeal decisions to show that the following trademarks containing “G” or “C” were considered dissimilar because of differences of sound, meaning, and others:

– “GTX” and “CTX”;
– “G.S.S.” and “CSS”;
– “GEM” and “CEM”; and others.