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 “NOIZ-PROTEC (stylized)” is not confusingly similar to “PROTEC”.

Cocoresearch Inc. filed a trademark application for “NOIZ-PROTEC (stylized)” shown below for measuring or testing machines and instruments, etc. in Class 9, which was registered without examiner’s refusal.  Inficon GmbH filed an opposition against the registration on the ground that the opposed mark is confusingly similar to its own prior mark “PROTEC” also as shown below for measuring or testing machines and instruments, etc. in Class 9.

<Opposed mark>


<Cited mark>

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

-　The opposed mark consists of highly-stylized letters and ordinary letters; the highly-stylized letters being the first part other than “ROTEC”, and the ordinary letters being “ROTEC”.
-　The opposed mark is unified as a whole in appearance.   Additionally, consumers will regard the first part as stylized “NOIZ-P” as it is quite natural for consumers to recognize that both parts are composed of alphabets.  Thus, the opposed mark is pronounced [no-i-zu-pu-ro-te-kku].
-　The opposed mark is inseparable and the letter “PROTEC” will not be extracted from the opposed mark.
-　The opposed mark and the cited mark is obviously not similar in appearance and sound, and the marks are not comparable in meaning.

The Opponent stated in the written opposition that the opposed mark is divided into “NOIZ” and “PROTEC” by a hyphen, and the part of “PROTEC” is so outstanding that the sound [pu-ro-te-kku] will be derived from the opposed mark.   However, the Board did not accept the opponent’s opinion for the above reason.

And so the Board recognized that the marks is not confusingly similar and dismissed the opposition.