Rejection 2024-005298 (JP Appl. No. 2023-7294)

The applied mark “3dpod” consists of “3D” and “pod.”  Further, “3D” means “three dimensions.”  Furthermore, “pod” is an abbreviation of “print on demand.”  Thus, “pod” means“ means “on-demand printing.”  Additionally, the Examiner has recognized that the industry dealing the designated goods and services of the trademark application provides “on-demand printing service”, namely, manufacturing three-dimensional shaped object to order.  Further, the Examiner has recognized that the wording “on-demand 3D printing service” etc. is popularly used in the above-mentioned industry, when providing such service.

Therefore, the Examiner refused the registration of the trademark application for “3dpod” on the ground that the applied mark does not have enough distinctiveness.

However, the trial Examiners for the appeal have judged that the Examiner’s judgement is incorrect.  That is, the trial Examiners for the appeal have judged that the applied mark has enough distinctiveness.

March 27, 2025

(Applied Mark: JP Appl. No. 2023-7294)

3dpod  (standard characters)

3D printers in Class 7.
Repair and maintenance of 3D printers in Class 37.
3D printing services; rental of 3D printers in Class 40.
Other designated goods are in Class 19, and other designated services are in Classes 36 and 42.

All characters of the applied mark are placed in the same font and size.  Thus, “3dpod” (standard characters) is written compactly as a whole. Further, “3dpod” is a coined word that is not explained in the Japanese dictionaries.  Certainly, the wordings “on-demand 3D printing service” and “print on demand (POD)” have been used in the industry dealing the designated goods and services of the trademark application.  However, the appeal trial Examiners could not find the fact that “3dpod” has never been used in the above-mentioned industry, when manufacturing three-dimensional shaped object to order.

Thus, the appeal trial Examiners could not directly recognize that “3dpod” is the assembled wording of “3D, namely, three dimensions” and “pod, namely, an abbreviation of “print on demand”.”

Additionally, the appeal trial Examiners could not find the fact that both traders and consumers regarding the designated goods and services of the trademark application have recognized the applied mark “3dpod” as manufacturing three-dimensional shaped object to order.

Therefore, the appeal trial Examiners have judged that the applied mark has enough distinctiveness, and withdrawn the Examiner’s decision of refusal against the applied mark.

The appeal trial Examiners accepted our counter argument.  We believe that the key point of our counter argument to overcome the refusal would be the industry in Japan dealing the designated goods and services of the trademark application has used the wording  “pod: print on demand” to print two-dimensional object (paper etc.) to order.  We also believe that another key point would be the coined word “3dpod” has never been used in such industry.