Evaluation criteria for similarity of trademarks in Japan Vol.3 | Actual state of transactions of goods/services

In the previous post, you teached me the evaluation criteria for similarity of trademarks which were presented by the supreme court in Japan.

Evaluation criteria for similarity of trademarks in Japan Vol.2 | Criteria presented by “Hyozan Jirushi Case” (Judgement by Supreme Court in Japan on 27 February in 1968)

It is very important even now to determining similarity of trademarks.
You said that any reasonable grounds are needed to regard “appearance” as important than “pronunciation” in determining similarity of trademarks.
Yes, under the current trademark practice in Japan.
Could you show me an example for “reasonable grounds”?

It is effective to argue that there is the actual state of transactions of the goods/services for which the trademarks are used where the “appearance” and/or “meaning” of trademarks constitute more important elements to distinguish the origin of goods/services than “pronunciation” thereof.

If such “actual state of transactions” exists, it could constitute the reasonable ground.

Then, I should argue that my products are always sold while showing the consumers the appearance of its trademark actually in case I received the Office Action based on a prior trademark whose pronunciation was identical to my trademark as filed, right?
Unfortunately, no.
If you are in the process of prosecuting your trademark application, it is not enough to argue the actual state of transactions about “your products”.

You need to make the Examiner understand that not only your products/services but also “general” goods/services designated in your application are usually sold in the situation where the consumers pay attention to the appearance of trademark rather than its pronunciation.

As you may know, a trademark right owner can exclusively use his registered trademark for any kinds of goods/servieces designated in the registration.

For example, you have a trademark registration to exclusively use the mark “ABC” for the goods “computers”, and you are now selling your computer products with the registered mark in the manner that the consumers pay attention to the appearance of the mark rather than its pronunciation.

However, you will be able to use the registered mark for other computers which are sold in the manner to draw consumer’s attention to its pronunciation, of course.

That’s why it is required in application cases that there is “general” actual state of transactions of goods/services to atract consumer’s attention to the elements of trademark other than its pronunciation.

I see.
Then, let’s discuss more concretely in the next!


メールアドレスが公開されることはありません。 * が付いている欄は必須項目です


ブランド弁理士。「ブランディング × 知財」を探求・推進しています。

株式会社Toreru/特許業務法人Toreru のCOO(最高執行責任者)兼パートナー弁理士。(一財)ブランド・マネージャー認定協会1級資格&認定トレーナー。日本ブランド経営学会運営委員。日本弁理士会所属。

株式会社アルバック知的財産部にて、企業目線からの知的財産保護に従事。その後、秀和特許事務所にて、商標・意匠分野のプロフェッショナルとして、幅広い業界のクライアントに対し国内外のブランド保護をサポート。2018年9月より、株式会社Toreru/特許業務法人Toreru に移籍し、2019年1月より現職。「知財の価値を最大化させる」新しい知財サービスをつくっている。 | Linkedin | メールはこちらへ

April 2009 - August 2012 株式会社アルバック 知的財産部 | ULVAC, Inc.

September 2012 - August 2018 秀和特許事務所 | IP Firm SHUWA

September 2018 - 特許業務法人Toreru | Toreru, Inc.