本文へスキップ

We are a boutique IP firm located in Osaka, Japan, specializing in trademark, design, specific unfair competition and copyright matters.

EMAIL: info@okeno-ip.jp

CASE REPORT
Relative grounds for refusal

As for relative grounds for refusal, the following five provisions are applied to block the registration when conflict is found with a third party’s mark.

Section 4-1-10: marks identical with or similar to a third party’s well-known mark for identical or similar goods/services
Section 4-1-11: marks identical with or similar to a third party’s mark registered earlier for identical or similar goods/services
Section 4-1-15: marks likely to cause confusion as to the origin of goods/services
Section 4-1-19: marks identical with or similar to third party’s well-known mark and used for unfair purposes
Section 8-1: marks identical with or similar to a third party’s mark filed earlier for identical or similar goods/services

Among others, Section 4-1-11 (and Section 8-1) is the most typical refusal, while other three provisions are applied when third party’s mark is well-known.

Please click here for exact wording of each provision:

UPDATE
October 21, 2021
No. 176; Section 4-1-11, 4-1-15 and 4-1-19:similarity and likelihood of confusion; RUBICONIC v. RUBICON; Opposition No. 2019-900362 (July 22, 2020)READ
September 15, 2016
No. 174; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “DTSX” v. “dtsX”; Appeal No. 2015-21854 (May 19, 2016)READ
September 14, 2016
No. 173; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; Reebok ROYAL FLAG v. ROYAL FLAG; Appeal No. 2014-25616 (February 29, 2016)READ
September 5, 2016
No. 170; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “GearS” v. “GEAR4”; Appeal No. 2015-20187 (April 6, 2016)READ
June 30, 2016
No. 166; Section 4-1-11: similarity of marks; stylized B v. stylized B; Opposition No. 2015-900197 (February 4, 2016)READ
April 8, 2016
No. 163; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “iVAS” v. stylized “IBAS”; Appeal No. 2015-5288 (December 16, 2015)READ
April 5, 2016
No. 161; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; CIMPHONY (logo) v. SYMPHONY; Appeal No. 2015-19258 (January 5, 2016)READ
April 4, 2016
No. 160; Section 4-1-11 and 4-1-15: similarity and likelihood of confusion; “GUMPEACE” v. “G・u・m” logos; Opposition No. 2015-900039 (September 11, 2015)READ
April 4, 2016
No. 159; Section 4-1-11 and 4-1-15: similarity and likelihood of confusion; “Gumserum” v. “G・u・m” logos; Opposition No. 2014-900076 (March 25, 2015)READ
February 18, 2016
No. 158; Section 4-1-11 and 4-1-15: similarity and likelihood of confusion; “Medical Beauty Labo” v. “BEAUTYLABO”; Opposition No. 2014-900126 (December 8, 2014)READ
February 5, 2016
No. 157; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “FORUM PHARMACEUTICALS” logo v. “The Consumer Goods FORUM” logo; Appeal No. 2015-9697 (September 24, 2015)READ
January 22, 2016
No. 154; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “SPACCIO” v. “SPASIO with its transliteration in katakana”; Appeal No. 2015-9013 (July 23, 2015)READ
January 21, 2016
No. 153; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; LPA v. ALPA logo; Appeal No. 2015-9924 (July 24, 2015)READ
November 20, 2015
No. 150; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; gb v. gb♥; Appeal No. 2014-650024 (May 1, 2015)READ
November 18, 2015
No. 149; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; LIPRIDIA v. REPLIDEA; Appeal No. 2014-16020 (March 13, 2015)READ
October 13, 2015
No. 145; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “hilite.pro” v. “HiLite”; Appeal No. 2014-22513 (April 30, 2015)READ
October 8, 2015
No. 144; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; MOLL v. MOLE; Appeal No. 2014-650087 (March 11, 2015)READ
September 30, 2015
No. 141; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; +FiT v. FIT; Appeal No. 2014-19650 (April 21, 2015)READ
September 25, 2015
No. 140; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; SUPER IMPACT v. IMPACT; Appeal No. 2015-1597 (April 20, 2015)READ
September 24, 2015
No. 139; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “PROMISE DIAMOND” v. “PROMISE”; Appeal No. 2014-26551 (May 27, 2015)READ
September 17, 2015
No. 137; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; FAVORI & device v. Le FAVORI; Appeal No. 2014-3000 (April 24, 2015)READ
September 9, 2015
No. 136; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; relatedness of “chairs” and “steel archives”; Appeal No. 2014-18151 (February 9, 2015)READ
September 8, 2015
No. 135; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; GOLCIMA v. CORSIMA; Appeal No. 2014-18993 (December 17, 2014)READ
August 4, 2015
No. 133; Section 4-1-11: 2 cases on confusing similarity refusal; 918Spyder v. SPYDER; Appeal No. 2013-650076 (September 26, 2014) / MENU119 v. MENU; Appeal No. 2014-14825 (May 14, 2015)READ
July 30, 2015
No. 131; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “SD SmART” logo v. “Smart”; Appeal No. 2014-5405 (February 20, 2015)READ
June 3, 2015
No. 130; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “Samsung OneLine” logo v. “ONE LINE”; Appeal No. 2014-17752 (March 3, 2015)READ
June 1, 2015
No. 129; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “Andy’s Store” logo v. “ANDY”; Appeal No. 2014-19163 (February 18, 2015)READ
May 21, 2015
No. 124; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; CAIR v. CARE; Appeal No. 2014-650061 (November 25, 2014)READ
April 21, 2015
No. 122; Section 4-1-11, 4-1-10 and 4-1-15: similarity and likelihood of confusion; EATALIA v. EATALY; Opposition No. 2013-900316 (December 10, 2014)READ
March 30, 2015
No. 120; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; BISTRO BEE and design v. stylized BEE; Appeal No. 2014-7519 (November 10, 2014)READ
March 3, 2015
No. 119; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “agnés b. VOYAGE” logo v. “VOYAGE”; Appeal No. 2014-650015 (September 25, 2014)READ
February 23, 2015
No. 118; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “REDSTER” v. “REDSTAR53”; Appeal No. 2014-650069 (September 9, 2014)READ
January 30, 2015
No. 116; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; VACS v. BAX and device; Appeal No. 2013-25574 (August 29, 2014)READ
January 14, 2015
No. 115; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; stylized SORA v. SORA; Appeal No. 2013-22798 (October 1, 2014)READ
January 6, 2015
No. 111; Section 4-1-11: invalidation action; package including TIVOLI v. TIVOLI in katakana; Invalidation No. 2013-680001 (July 23, 2014)READ
November 14, 2014
No. 109; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; stylized MIA v. stylized MIA JEWELRY; Appeal No. 2013-21260 (July 31, 2014)READ
November 13, 2014
No. 108; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; HIROKO with monogram v. HIROKO COLLECTION; Appeal No. 2013-21800 (July 30, 2014)READ
November 12, 2014
No. 107; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; POLE v. PAUL; Appeal No. 2014-7834 (July 30, 2014)READ
November 7, 2014
No. 105; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “SAMTECH” v. “SANTEC”; Appeal No. 2013-20160 (May 28, 2014)READ
October 30, 2014
No. 104; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “KOMAX” v. “KOMACK”; Appeal No. 2013-650030 (January 30, 2014)READ
October 24, 2014
No. 103; Section 4-1-15: likelihood of confusion of red mug logo; Opposition No. 2013-900404 (June 9, 2014)READ
October 16, 2014
No. 102; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “LAHAINA logo” v. “LAHAINA”; Appeal No. 2014-2186 (June 6, 2014)READ
October 10, 2014
No. 101; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “N / NOVATEC” v. “NOVATIC with its transliteration in katakana”; Appeal No. 2013-15231 (January 7, 2013)READ
October 6, 2014
No. 100; Section 4-1-11 and 4-1-15: similarity and likelihood of confusion; stylized P; Opposition No. 2013-900389 (July 7, 2014)READ
October 3, 2014
No. 099; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “HAPPINESS with its transliteration in katakana” v. “happiness from café” logo; Appeal No. 2014-2415 (July 4, 2014)READ
October 2, 2014
No. 098; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “INSIGHT” v. “Incyte” logo; Appeal No. 2013-15620 (July 8, 2014)READ
September 30, 2014
No. 096; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “Super Magna with its transliteration in katakana” v. “MAGNA”; Appeal No. 2013-10619 (May 9, 2014)READ
September 18, 2014
No. 095; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; stylized Dio v. stylized DIO; Appeal No. 2013-22562 (May 30, 2014)READ
September 17, 2014
No. 094; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; MONOKURU v. MONOCLE; Appeal No. 2014-1559 (May 27, 2014)READ
September 8, 2014
No. 090; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; relatedness of “wrapping paper” and “reagent paper”; Appeal No. 2014-2920 (May 27, 2014)READ
September 5, 2014
No. 089; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal on two device marks at different angle; Appeal No. 2013-21028 (May 27, 2014)READ
September 4, 2014
No. 088; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; BLACK★BLACK v. BLACK & BLACK; Appeal No. 2014-4368 (June 6, 2014)READ
August 29, 2014
No. 087; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; AWAKE v. AWAKE; Appeal No. 2013-650036 (October 22, 2013)READ
August 28, 2014
No. 086; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; AGEHA v. AGEHA; Appeal No. 2013-16753 (June 5, 2014)READ
August 12, 2014
No. 083; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; ORGANIC V v. ORGANIC (with or without device); Appeal No. 2013-19264 (April 25, 2014)READ
August 8, 2014
No. 082; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; Madre v. stylized Madre:X; Appeal No. 2013-20554 (May 30, 2014)READ
August 5, 2014
No. 080; Section 4-1-11 and 4-1-15: similarity and likelihood of confusion; “GOLD PARTNER” logo v. “PIRELLI” logo; Opposition No. 2013-685006 (November 13, 2013)READ
August 1, 2014
No. 079; Section 4-1-11 and 4-1-15: similarity and likelihood of confusion; stylized St Ella v. STELLA; IP High Court Case No. H25 (Gyo-Ke) 10251 (February 27, 2014)READ
July 30, 2014
No. 078; Section 4-1-15: likelihood of confusion of double C logo; Invalidation Action No. 2013-890046 (March 26, 2014)READ
July 25, 2014
No. 077; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “UNJOUR STRAWBERRY FIELDS” v. “ENJOUR” or “un jour” logo; Appeal No. 2014-197 (April 24, 2014)READ
July 18, 2014
No. 076; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; Are “camera modules” related to “jewelry adorned headphone covers”?; Appeal No. 2013-18783 (May 1, 2014)READ
July 16, 2014
No. 075; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; STEC v. ESTECH; Appeal No. 2013-21173 (April 16, 2014)READ
July 15, 2014
No. 074; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity; “A.R.T. / by OFUON” v. “ART” and “ART” logo; Opposition No. 2013-900156 (February 26, 2014)READ
July 8, 2014
No. 072; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “FACE FITNESS with its transliteration in katakana” v. “RALPH LAUREN / FACE FITNESS”; Appeal No. 2013-13531 (January 28, 2014)READ
July 3, 2014
No. 071; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “Shade by Yoshiya Keiko” v. “Shade”; Appeal No. 2013-16918 (February 27, 2014)READ
July 2, 2014
No. 070; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “seasew” v. “seesaw Tokyo” logo; Appeal No. 2013-14551 (March 25, 2014)READ
July 1, 2014
No. 069; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “MiiCA and its transliteration in katakana” v. “miica logo”; Appeal No. 2013-9778 (March 24, 2014)READ
June 30, 2014
No. 068; Section 4-1-11, 4-1-15 and 4-1-19: similarity and likelihood of confusion; stylized B; Opposition No. 2013-900174 (April 11, 2014)READ
June 26, 2014
No. 067; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity; stylized “bohem” v. “BOHÈME”; Opposition No. 2013-900345 (March 26, 2014) READ
June 25, 2014
No. 066; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity; “BARMAN” v. “BARMAR”; Opposition No. 2013-900339 (March 20, 2014) READ
June 24, 2014
No. 065; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; METAMORPHOSIS QUARTZ v. METAMORPHOSIS; Appeal No. 2013-14968 (March 27, 2014) READ
June 20, 2014
No. 063; Section 4-1-11, 4-1-10 and 4-1-15: similarity and likelihood of confusion; “RISING SUN” v. “SUNRISE”; Opposition No. 2013-900165 (February 6, 2014) READ
June 17, 2014
No. 062; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; Are “snack foods” related to “pizzas”?; Appeal No. 2013-9372 (March 24, 2014) READ
June 16, 2014
No. 061; Section 4-1-15: likelihood of confusion; PASTE-IT v. Post-it; Invalidation No. 2013-890061 (January 7, 2014) READ
June 13, 2014
No. 060; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “SYNOFLEX” v. stylized “SIrOFLeX”; Appeal No. 2013-23214 (March 17, 2014) READ
June 10, 2014
No. 058; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “Pick’s with its transliteration in katakana” v. “PIX / PHOTO IMAGING X-CHANGE (logo)”; Appeal No. 2013-17562 (February 3, 2014) READ
June 6, 2014
No. 056; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “THE KISS / sweets” v. “sweets”; Appeal No. 2013-17574 (March 3, 2014) READ
June 5, 2014
No. 055; Section 4-1-11, 4-1-10 and 4-1-15: similarity and likelihood of confusion; “möbus” v. “MOEBIUS”; Opposition No. 2013-900213 (February 17, 2014) READ
June 4, 2014
No. 054; Section 4-1-15: likelihood of confusion; TIFFANIA v. Tiffany; Opposition No. 2013-900197 (January 17, 2014) READ
June 2, 2014
No. 052; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity; “COOLiRGaN” v. “COOLGAN”; Opposition No. 2013-900247 (February 28, 2014) READ
May 30, 2014
No. 051; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “E-VOLUTION” v. stylized “evolution”; Appeal No. 2013-16958 (March 4, 2014) READ
May 28, 2014
No. 049; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “COLLECTION B” v. “COLLECTION and its transliteration in katakana”; Appeal No. 2013-9645 (February 27, 2014) READ
May 27, 2014
No. 048; Section 4-1-11: invalidation action; IDEALWINE v. Ideal; Invalidation No. 2013-890017 (October 1, 2013) READ
May 21, 2014
No. 047; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; COOL MAX ENERGY (logo) v. ENERGY; Appeal No. 2013-3041 (August 23, 2013) READ
May 20, 2014
No. 046; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “VANS / “OFF THE WALL” & device” v. “off the wall”; Appeal No. 2013-12891 (February 20, 2014) READ
May 19, 2014
No. 045; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity; “NOIZ-PROTEC (stylized)” v. “PROTEC”; Opposition No. 2013-900120 (January 20, 2014) READ
May 15, 2014
No. 044; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “ALGO FIRST” v. “Argofast and its phonetic equivalent in katakana”; Appeal No. 2011-14524 (September 17, 2013) READ
May 14, 2014
No.043; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “V-shaped figure” v. “V-shaped figure and acSteam”; Appeal No. 2013-650043 (December 2, 2013) READ
May 7, 2014
No. 040; Section 4-1-11 and 4-1-15: similarity and likelihood of confusion; Q(MC) v. McQ logo; Opposition No. 2013-900261 (January 15, 2014) READ
April 30, 2014
No. 038; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “X-COOL (standard character)” v. “COOL”; Appeal No. 2013-11195 (January 15, 2014) READ
April 18, 2014
No. 035; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “A.I.M.E.” for telecommunication apparatus and electronic apparatus v. stylized “Aime” for identical goods; Appeal No. 2013-17867 (February 12, 2014) READ
April 17, 2014
No. 034; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “Be You” for hand creams, facial cleansing creams, bath powders v. “BEYU” for cosmetics; Appeal No. 2013-24369 (January 23, 2014) READ
April 16, 2014
No. 033; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “FABIA” for retail services or wholesale services for printed matter v. “HABIA” for printed matter; Appeal No. 2013-21118 (January 17, 2014) READ
April 10, 2014
No. 032; Section 4-1-15: likelihood of confusion; design of two pumas v. design of one puma; Opposition No. 2013-900068 (November 14, 2013) READ
April 9, 2014
No. 031; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “CRYSTAL CLEAN & SHINE” v. “CRYSTAL with its phonetic equivalent in katakana” et.al.; Appeal No. 2013-15784 (January 7, 2014) READ
April 2, 2014
No. 028; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; PAPPLI v. PABULI; Appeal No. 2013-11365 (November 7, 2013) READ
March 26, 2014
No. 026; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “AIRIA” v. “AirriA and its phonetic equivalent in katakana”; Appeal No. 2013-650029 (November 20, 2013) READ
March 12, 2014
No. 022; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “TERRA” for automobiles v. “TERRA-TIRE” for automobile tires; Appeal No. 2013-16579 (December 19, 2013) READ
March 10, 2014
No. 021; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; stylized “MAXIMUM” (?) v. transliteration of “MAXIMUM” in katakana; Appeal No. 2013-5204 (November 27, 2013) READ
March 5, 2014
No. 020; Section 4-1-15: likelihood of confusion; “GILLETTE” for batteries v. “Gillette” for razors; Opposition No. 2012-685007 (May 22, 2013) READ
March 4, 2014
No. 019; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “BLACKCANNON” v. “Canon” et.al.; Appeal No. 2013-6362 (October 17, 2013) READ
February 27, 2014
No. 018; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “gumi/One Step Beyond. and device” v. “GummY and device”; Appeal No. 2013-18611 (December 6, 2013) READ
February 26, 2014
No. 017; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; Is “medical respirators and ventilators” related to “bracelets for medical purposes”?; Appeal No. 2013-7767 (December 5, 2013) READ
February 25, 2014
No. 016; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “Tpresso (stylized)” v. “Teapresso” et.al.; Appeal No. 2012-650087 (October 11, 2013) READ
February 24, 2014
No. 015; Section 4-1-11: invalidation action; Is “LOVE, Chloé (stylized)” similar to “LOVE” as to “perfumery, etc.” in Class 3? ; Invalidation No. 2012-680003 (May 15, 2013) READ
February 13, 2014
No.013; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “La chou-chou” v. “Petit a’ Chouchou (stylized)” and “chou chou”; Appeal No. 2013-7209 (November 19, 2013) READ
February 10, 2014
No.011; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “FISSCOO” v. “FISCO”; Appeal No. 2013-650051 (September 19, 2013) READ
February 6, 2014
No.010; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “1ST(stylized)” v. “FIRST”; Appeal No. 2013-9137 (October 22, 2013) READ
February 5, 2014
No.009; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal of dotted circle marks; Appeal No. 2013-6434 (September 17, 2013) READ
February 4, 2014
No.008; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “UL monogram” v. “transliteration of UL in katakana” for clothing; Appeal No. 2013-15863 (October 7, 2013) READ
January 30, 2014
No.006; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity of "lion emblems"; Opposition No. 2013-900046 (November 8, 2013) READ
January 28, 2014
No.004; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “LC/ecosys(stylized)” v. “ECOSYS” / “ECOSiS”; Appeal No. 2013-13630 (October 29, 2013) READ
January 24, 2014
No.002; Section 4-1-11: confusing similarity refusal; “e-GARAGE” v. “e/garage (stylized)" for parking services; Appeal No. 2013-12124 (September 19, 2013)　READ
CASE REPORT TOP

ナビゲーション

バナースペース

Okeno IP Professionals, PAC

Dojima NS Bldg. 3F, 2-1-18, Dojima
Kita-ku, Osaka 530-0003 Japan

TEL: +81-6-6343-8401
FAX: +81-6-6343-8402
Email: info@okeno-ip.jp