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 “SYNOFLEX” not similar to stylized “SIrOFLeX”.

The applicant filed an application for “SYNOFLEX” in standard character designating metal junctions for pipes; valves of metal, other than parts of machines; etc. in Class 6.  The examiner refused the application deeming the applied-for mark is confusingly similar to stylized “SIrOFLeX” shown below covering identical goods in Class 6.

<Cited mark>

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

<As for the applied-for mark>
The applied-for mark is not a dictionary word and is not a familiar term in Japan.  So, the mark will be found as a fancy word having no particular meaning.  The mark is pronounced as [si-no-fu-re-kku-su].

<As for the cited mark>
The cited mark is presented unified as a whole by keeping all letters including “r” and “o” in equal height.  The cited mark is not a dictionary word either and is not a familiar term in Japan.  Thus, the mark has no particular meaning and is pronounced as [si-ro-fu-re-kku-su].

<Comparison>
- The marks are obviously distinguishable in appearance.
- The second sound of each mark is different, i.e. [no] v. [ro].  [no] and [ro] differ in the position and manner of articulation.  Both marks will have a slight pause between the former two sounds and the latter four sounds, and within the relatively short sound, said difference has a great influence on overall pronunciation of the marks.  Thus, the marks will be distinguishable in sound.
- The marks are not comparable in meaning as the marks have no particular meaning.
- Overall, the marks are not confusing similar to each other.

And so the Board reversed the refusal, and granted registration of “SYNOFLEX”.