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

Bottom line: The Board concluded that the applied-for mark “FISSCOO” is not confusingly similar to the “FISCO”

The applicant filed a trademark application through Madrid Protocol for FISSCOO in Class 21.  The Examiner cited two marks as confusingly similar, “FISCO (stylized)” and “FISCO and its transliteration in katakana”.

The designated goods of the applied-for mark and cited marks overlap, so the similarity of the marks are at issue.  The Board compared the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks and found as follows:

-　The appearance of the marks is distinctly different.
-　The applied-for mark will be pronounced [fi-su-ku:] while the cited marks will be pronounced [fi-su-ko].  There is a phonetic difference at the final sound [ku:] and [ko] which are both plosive sound having sharp effect, and [ku:] with prolonged sound is pronounced clearly.  Such difference within 3 or 4 moras (unit of sound) is significant, and the marks are distinguishable in sound as a whole.
-　The meaning of the marks is not comparable.
-　Overall, the applied-for mark and the cited marks are not confusingly similar to each other in any aspect and no other factor is found to affect the decision.

And so the Board reversed the refusal and approved the registration of “FISSCOO”.

---