Rejection 2025-015376 (JP Appl. No. 2024-110470)

  – The applied trademark “R WEAR” (standard characters) consists of the letter “R” followed, after a space, by the word “WEAR”. Additionally, “WEAR” means “clothing; clothes” and that the designated goods concern clothing.

  Therefore, the Examiner refused the registration of the trademark application for “R WEAR” on the ground that the applied mark would be perceived as merely a combination of a single letter “R” indicating a product number/model number and the word “WEAR” indicating clothing, rather than as a source-identifying mark, and thus lacks distinctiveness, falling under Article 3(1)(vi) of the Japanese Trademark Act.

  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 sufficient distinctiveness.

July 15, 2026

Sony Group Corporation

Applied Mark: JP Appl. No. 2024-110470

R WEAR
(Standard Characters)

  “special clothing for medical purposes; medical trousers; medical tights; medical apparatus and instruments (excluding walking aids and crutches)” in Class 10.

  “clothing; coats; jumpers; dress shirts and shirts; nightwear; underwear; camisoles; T-shirts; kimono; aprons; socks; gaiters; fur stoles; shawls; scarves; gloves; neckties; neckerchiefs; bandanas; thermal supporters; mufflers; ear muffs; nightcaps; headwear” in Class 25.

  Even if the wording “WEAR” is recorded in dictionaries as meaning “things worn; clothing; clothes” and a single Roman letter may, as a general matter, be used as a symbol indicating a product number or specification, in the specific configuration “R WEAR”, the letter “R” would not readily be perceived as indicating a product number or specification.

  Rather, the mark as a whole would be perceived as a coined expression having no specific meaning. The Trial Examiners also found no evidence that “R WEAR” was ordinarily used in trade, in relation to the designated goods, to convey the meaning asserted by the Examiner. Nor did they find a trade practice in which a single Roman letter is generally placed at the beginning of a product name to indicate a product/model number.

  Therefore, traders and consumers would instead recognize “R WEAR” as a source-identifying sign as a whole, and thus the applied mark “R WEAR” cannot be deemed to lack distinctiveness as prescribed in Article 3(1)(vi) of the Japanese Trademark Act.

  The applicant claimed in the appeal brief as follows:

  – there was no trade practice under which the initial “R” in this configuration would be understood as a model number.

  – “WEAR” alone conveyed at most a vague concept rather than a specific product name.

  – Therefore, Article 3(1)(vi) should not be applied by mechanically adding the weakness of the individual components. The overall configuration, the perception of relevant consumers and actual trade conditions should be considered.

  As a result of these claims in the appeal brief being successful, the Examiner’s judgement in the refusal decision was deemed incorrect, and the applicant’s request was granted by the trial Examiners for the appeal.