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 “gumi/One Step Beyond. and device” not similar to “GummY, transliteration of gummy in katakana and device”.

The applicant filed an application for “gumi/One Step Beyond. and device” below in Classes 41 and 42.  The Examiner cited “GummY, transliteration of gummy in katakana and device” in Classes 9, 35, 41, 42 and 45.

<Applied-for mark>


<Cited mark>


“Game services provided by means of the Internet or other computer network” in Class 41 of the application is related to “on-line game services” in Class 41 of the cited registration.  So, the main issue is whether the marks are confusingly similar or not.

The Board observed the involved marks and found them not similar to each other:

[Composition of the applied-for mark]
The applied-for mark will be separated into a device element, “gumi” and “One Step Beyond.” as each of these three elements is so different in size.  “Gumi” functions as a source identifier independently for being large and remarkable in appearance.  Thus, the mark will have a pronunciation [gu-mi].  “Gumi” has no particular meaning.

[Composition of the cited mark]
“GummY” is connected to the device element with border color.  However, “GummY” independently functions as a source identifier as there are no particular circumstances to recognize that the mark as a whole is unified.  Thus, the mark will have a pronunciation [gu-mi:].  “GummY” is a dictionary word.

[Comparison]
The applied-for mark and the cited mark will be different at the ending with or without the prolonged sound.  Such difference is significant in the marks with short phonetic composition.  Therefore, the marks are not similar in sound.  Additionally, the marks are not similar in appearance and meaning.

And so the Board reversed the refusal, and the application for “gumi/One Step Beyond. and device” was granted for registration.

 

---