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 that “LOVE, Chloé (stylized)” is similar to “LOVE” with respect to “perfumery, etc.” in Class 3.

CHLOE, SAS. filed an international application for “LOVE, Chloé (stylized)” below for “perfumery, perfumes, essential oils, soaps, cosmetic preparations for skin, creams, lotions, deodorants” in Class 3 designating Japan.

[mark at issue]


Club Cosmetics Co., Ltd. raised an invalidation action against the registration for “LOVE, Chloé (stylized)” with respect to the goods other than “soaps”.  Club Cosmetics argued that the mark at issue is similar to the cited marks, “LOVE”, “Love” and “transliteration of Love in katakana ()”.  CHLOE did not file a counter argument.

The designated goods of the mark at issue are identical or similar with those of the cited marks.  So the main issue is whether the marks are distinguishable or not.

The Board reviewed this case and recognized that:

- The mark at issue consists of two elements, “LOVE,” and “Chloé”.  Those elements are different in a font type and a letter size.  Further, the mark as a whole has no particular meaning.
- Therefore, the mark at issue will be separated into “LOVE,” and “Chloé”, and each element functions as a source identifier independently.
- “LOVE” in the mark at issue is identical with all of the cited marks in meaning and pronunciation.  Additionally, there is visual resemblance between the mark at issue and some of the cited marks due to the common element “LOVE”.
- Thus, the mark at issue is similar to the cited marks.

And so the Board concluded that the registration for “LOVE, Chloé (stylized)” is invalid with respect to “perfumery etc.” in Class 3.

 

---