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

Bottom line: The Board found “e-GARAGE” not similar to “e/garage (stylized)”.

The applicant filed a trademark application for “e-GARAGE (standard character)” in Class 39 for “providing information relating to vehicle parking services; operating parking lots”.  The Examiner cited a prior mark “e/garage (stylized)” shown below in Class 39 for the services including “parking services; providing information relating to location and availability of parking; operating parking lots”.

The designated services of two marks are literally or legally identical.  So the question was whether the marks are distinguishable or not.  The Board found as follows:

- The applied-for mark will be pronounced as [i:-ga-re:-ji] and has no meaning;
- The cited mark will be pronounced as [ga-re:-ji] because the term “garage” in red is the eye-catching element of the cited mark for the consumer.  The meaning of the cited mark is “garage” as it is a familiar English word;
- Now the Board compare the two marks.  The appearance of the two marks is remarkably distinguishable.  The sound of the marks is significantly different at the beginning of the marks.  The meaning of the marks is not necessarily similar.
- Overall, the marks at issue are not confusingly similar.

And so the Board reversed the refusal, and the application for “e-GARAGE” was granted for registration.

<mutter of ourselves>
YO: I think the only sound coming out of the cited mark is “e-garage”.  The background “e” will not be overlooked.
SO: I agree.  The visual difference is remarkable, but phonetically and semantically, are these marks so different, especially when the marks are used for “garage services”??

---