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 MiniLung not descriptive nor misdescriptive for medical apparatus and instruments.

The applicant sought registration of MiniLung designating medical apparatus and instruments, including membrane ventilators and gas exchanging devices for extracorporeal lung and heart support.

The examiner was of the opinion that MiniLung is merely descriptive for small size artificial breathing devices and misdescriptive for other medical apparatus and instruments.

The Board acknowledged that the applied-for mark is composed of two words “Mini” and “Lung”, but the mark is written in the same font and unified as a whole.  One of the meaning of “lung” listed in an English-Japanese dictionary is indeed artificial lung or artificial breathing device, but it is commonly used in the meaning of lung or pulmonis, and according to a medical dictionary, “pump-oxygenator” or “heart-lung machine” is listed to refer to artificial lung, and “artificial ventilator” or “artificial respirator” is listed to mean artificial breathing device.  Therefore, “lung” per se does not necessarily refer to artificial lung or artificial breathing device in the relevant industry.

The applied-for mark may mean “small pulmonis” but it will not be recognized as a descriptive term in relation to the designated goods.  Further, the Board did not find any proof that MiniLung is used in the industry to describe the quality of goods.

The Board concluded that the applied-for mark is not descriptive nor misdescriptive with respect to the designated goods and reversed the refusal.

 

---