Rejection 2025-734 (JP Appl. No. 2024-105683)

  The Examiner determined that the letters forming the filament portion of the cited mark were considered similar to the applied-for mark “MUST” written in standard characters. Additionally, the designated services of the cited mark were similar to those of the applied-for mark. Accordingly, the Examiner issued a decision of refusal against the application.

  However, the appeal Examiners determined that the Examiner’s finding was incorrect. That is, they concluded that the applied-for mark was not similar to the cited mark.

April 17, 2025

 (Applied-for Mark)
MUST (written in standard characters)

(Cited Mark: JP Reg. No. 6032412)

(Applied-for Mark: JP Appl. No. 2024-105683)
  Educational and instruction services relating to arts, crafts, sports or general knowledge etc. in Class 41

(Cited Mark: JP Reg. No. 6032412)
  Educational and instruction services relating to arts, crafts, sports or general knowledge etc. in Class 41

  The cited mark mainly consists of an electric light bulb that includes a filament. The filament has a highly stylized design. Therefore, the appeal Examiners determined that the filament’s design could not be recognized as a specific letter separable from the cited mark for comparison with the applied-for mark.

  Accordingly, the appeal Examiners reversed the Examiner’s decision.

  This case serves as an example of the JPO’s criteria for determining whether a stylized shape can be recognized as a letter.

  A reading of the filament shape as the word “must” cannot be ruled out.  However, part of the filament, namely, the portion resembling “mu”, appears more like a coil. Therefore, it would be difficult to recognize the filament shape as the letters “must” unless the applied-for mark “MUST” were placed beside the cited mark.

  In view of the above, we believe that the appeal Examiners’ decision is reasonable.