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 PAPPLI is similar to PABURI.

The applicant sought registration of PAPPLI with its phonetic equivalent for various software in Class 9.  The examiner’s cited mark was PABULI with its phonetic equivalent for pre-recorded data carriers in Class 9.  Each mark is shown below:

[Applied-for mark]




[The cited mark]

The designated goods of the two marks are assumed similar and the question is whether the marks are distinguishable.

The Board started with comparison of the connotation.  Both marks are coined words having no particular meaning and therefore the connotation is not comparable.

Turning to the appearance, the Board found the marks look close to each other because each mark comprises 3 katakana letters on the first line and 6 Latin alphabets on the second line, and the only visual difference of katakana portion is the middle letter  and  where difference lies in small symbol on the right shoulder (a circle or two dots), and the differences of Latin alphabet portion are in the middle “PP” and “bu” as well as whether it is written uppercase or lowercase.

Finally, the phonetic comparison did not weigh in favor of the applicant either.  The applied-for mark will be pronounced [pa-pu-ri], whereas the cited mark [pa-bu-ri].  The only difference in sound is the second sound [pu] and [bu], which share the vowel [u] and both plosive sound.  Semi-voiced sound [p] and voiced sound [b] are sonically similar and such difference is buried in the middle of the mark.  Accordingly, the Board found two marks are similar in sound.

So the Board affirmed the refusal of PAPPLI with its phonetic equivalent.

 

---