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 “Storage. Networking. Accelerated.” not descriptive nor misdescriptive for integrated circuits, computer hardware for networking and communicating, etc.

The applicant sought registration of “Storage. Networking. Accelerated.” designating integrated circuits, computer hardware for networking and communicating, computer programs for controlling network communication apparatus, etc.

<Applied-for mark>

The Examiner found as follows and refused the application:

-　Consumers easily recognize that the applied-for mark has the meaning of “memory devices”, “interconnecting computers and data banks” and “speed up” in view of the designated goods.  Additionally, the mark is represented in a common manner.
-　“Storage. Networking. Accelerated.” will merely indicate the quality of goods when used to, for example, integrated circuits.
-　Thus, the mark is descriptive or misdescriptive for the designated goods.

The Board observed the applied-for mark and found as follows:

-　The mark “Storage. Networking. Accelerated.” is presented in same font and size, and is unified as a whole.
-　Even though each element of the mark has the meaning the Examiner noted, consumers will not recognize that the mark directly and specifically indicates the quality of the designated goods, and the mark will be rather recognized as a coined word.
-　Further, the Board did not find any proof that “Storage. Networking. Accelerated.” is commonly used in the industry to describe the quality of goods.
-　The Board recognized that the mark fully functions as a source identifier and is not misdescriptive for the designated goods.

And so the Board reversed the refusal.