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 “ALGO FIRST” similar to “Argofast and its phonetic equivalent in katakana”.

The applicant filed an application for “ALGO FIRST” in standard character designating telecommunication apparatus, electronic apparatus, etc. in Class 9 and services in Class 36.  The examiner refused the application deeming the applied-for mark confusingly similar to “Argofast and its phonetic equivalent in katakana” covering identical goods in Class 9.

<Cited mark>

The Board observed the marks at issue and found as follows:

-　The applied-for mark is presented in same font and size, and appears unified.  Accordingly, it is pronounced [a-ru-go-fa:-su-to] and has no specific meaning as “ALGO” is a fancy term.
-　The cited mark is pronounced [a-ru-go-fa:-su-to] in accordance with the katakana, and has no specific meaning as it is a coined word.
-　Comparing the spelling between the applied-for mark and the cited mark, the marks merely have two differences, i.e. “L” vs. “r” and “IR” vs. “a”.  Thus, the marks bear a　certain resemblance in appearance each other.
-　The applied-for mark and the cited mark are identical in sound, and are not comparable in meaning.

In conclusion, the Board recognized that the marks at issue are confusingly similar because　they are identical in sound and somewhat similar in appearance.

And so the Board affirmed the refusal.