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 “FABIA” not similar to “HABIA”.

The applicant filed an application for “FABIA” in standard character designating inter alia, retail services or wholesale services for printed matter.  The examiner refused registration deeming the applied-for mark confusingly similar to “HABIA” also in standard character for inter alia, printed matter.

According to the Examination Guidelines of Goods and Services, “retail/wholesale services for printed matter” in Class 35 is assumed similar to “printed matter” in Class 16.  The main issue here is the similarity of the marks.

The Board found that FABIA and HABIA are sufficiently distinguishable in appearance.  As to the sound [fa-bi-a] and [ha-bi-a], the Board found that the difference at the very beginning of short three sounds has significant impact on overall sound of the marks, and the overall tone and sense in sound are different.  Thus the marks are sufficiently distinguishable in sound due to the difference of overall tone and sense.  The marks do not have any significance and thus is not similar in connotation.

The Board concluded that the marks FABIA and HABIA is not similar in any aspect of appearance, sound or connotation.  And so the Board reversed the refusal.

 

---