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 Q(MC) is not confusingly similar to McQ logo.

J Network Inc. applied for Q(MC) and its phonetic equivalent in katakana shown below for cosmetics, which was registered without examiner’s refusal.  Autumnpaper Ltd. filed an opposition citing its prior mark for cosmetics and other goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35 also shown below.

<Opposed mark>


<Cited mark>

The Board found that the katakana portion of the opposed mark identifies the pronunciation of the alphabet portion, and that the opposed mark will be pronounced as Q-M-C [kju:-e-mu-shi:].

As for the cited mark, the Board noted that the outer frame around “Mc” cannot be recognized as Q instantly.  Therefore, the primarily pronunciation derived from the cited mark is [ma-kku] relevant to “Mc”.  The Board further found that the secondary pronunciation of the cited mark will be [ma-kku-kju:] (McQ) rather than [kju:-e-mu-shi:] (QMC) for the following reason: The cited mark was launched by Alexander McQueen in 2006 as a casual wear brand, and was introduced to Japanese market around August 2011 with its pronunciation [ma-kku-kju:].  Therefore, some of the consumer may pronounce the cited mark as such.

Based on the above finding, the Board concluded that the marks at issue are different in sound.  The appearance of the marks are also different, and the connotation is not comparable as neither mark has specific meaning.

The Opponent argued that the MC portion of the opposed mark will be separated from Q by the parenthesis and the sound equivalent to MC alone will arise, which is identical to that of the cited mark.  The Board did not find it reasonable as the opposed mark is unified as a whole.

Accordingly, the Board concluded that the opposed mark is not confusingly similar to the cited mark and does not fall under Section 4-1-11.

The Opponent also argued that the opposed mark falls under Section 4-1-15 as there is likelihood of confusion, not only confusion of goods/services but also of source being economically linked.

To prove the likelihood of confusion, the Opponent must show that the cited mark is well known among consumer before the filing date of the opposed mark as well as at the time of the grant.  The Opponent failed to submit sufficient evidence and the Board did not find the cited mark well-known.  In addition thereto, the opposed mark is not similar to the cited mark visually, phonetically or semantically.  Thus, the Board found that confusion is not likely and the opposed mark does not fall under Section 4-1-15.

And so the Board dismissed the opposition.