We are a boutique IP firm located in Osaka, Japan, specializing in trademark, design, specific unfair competition and copyright matters.

Bottom line: The Board confirmed the examiner’s refusal that “hybrid” is descriptive for painting machines and apparatus, protective suits, etc.

The applicant sought registration of hybrid in standard character designating spray guns for paint and other painting machines, etc. in Class 7 as well as clothing for protection against accidents, irradiation and fire; clothing for protection against accidents, etc. in Class 9.

The examiner found that the applied-for mark is merely descriptive for, for example, painting machines and apparatus having function of combining more than one different paint, and thus the mark falls under Section 3-1-3 (merely descriptive mark) and Section 4-1-16 (misdescriptive mark).

The case was brought to the Appeal Board.  The Board first noted that hybrid and its meaning is familiar in Japan.

The Board found various examples of hybrid used in the relevant industries, such as:

1. in the industry of painting machines:
- hybrid mechanism having features of chipping gun and spray gun…
- This paint spray gun … is a new generation hybrid model having feature of low pressure type and those exclusive for metallic/pearl painting...

2. in the industry of protective clothing:
- … is a blade-proof vest using hybrid panel of high-function fiber and chemical goods …
- … is a hybrid protective clothing having both features of …

Based on the evidences, the Board found that the term hybrid is commonly used in the relevant industry to refer to products using several different materials or having several different features.  Thus, the applied-for mark merely describes the quality of goods when used for such goods, and does not function as a source identifier.

And so the Board confirmed the examiner’s refusal and dismissed the appeal.