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 “COOLiRGaN” is not confusingly similar to “COOLGAN”.

International Rectifier Corporation filed a trademark application for “COOLiRGaN” for semi-conductors, etc. in Class 9, which was registered without examiner’s refusal on the ground of confusing similarity.  Infineon Technologies Austria AG filed an opposition against the registration on the ground that the opposed mark “COOLiRGaN” is confusingly similar to its own prior mark “COOLGAN” covering identical goods in Class 9. 

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

<As for the opposed mark>
-　The opposed mark appears unified as a whole.  So, the opposed mark will be pronounced as [ku:-ri-a-ga-n] or [ku:-ri-ru-ga-n], and has no particular meaning.

<As for the cited mark>
-　The cited mark is pronounced as [ku:-ru-ga-n] and also has no particular meaning.

<Comparison>
-　As for appearance, the number of letters composing the opposed mark is different from that of the cited mark, i.e. 9 letters v. 7 letters.  The marks share “COOL”, “G” and “N”, and differ in with or without “iR” and in case “a” and “A”.  With these differences, both marks are fully distinguishable in appearance.
-　As for sound, the number of sound of the opposed mark is different from that of the cited mark, i.e. 6 sounds v. 5 sounds.  Sound [ri-a] or [ri-ru] in the middle of the opposed mark is different from [ru] in the middle of the cited mark.  Thus, both marks are fully distinguishable in sound.
-　The opposed mark and the cited mark are not comparable in meaning as both marks have no particular meaning.
-　Therefore, the opposed mark will not be similar to the cited mark.

<Opponent’s argument>
The opponent stated as follows:
-　“IR” is an abbreviation of “International Rectifier Corporation”, the opposed party.
-　Generally speaking, other part of the trademark functions as a source identifier when the trademark includes the holder’s name or its abbreviation.  Thus, in the opposed mark, “COOL” and “GaN” will function as a source identifier, and the opposed mark will be similar to the cited mark.

As for the above opponent’s argument, the Board recognized the opposed mark is unified and undividable and that “iR” will not be disregarded from the mark.

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