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 “BARMAN” is not confusingly similar to “BARMAR”.

K.K. Koumura filed a trademark application for “BARMAN” in standard character designating services for providing food and drink in Class 43 and services in Class 35, which was registered without examiner’s refusal on the ground of confusing similarity.  Kamei Anjou Co., Ltd. filed an opposition against the registration on the ground that the opposed mark “BARMAN” is confusingly similar to its own prior mark “BARMAR” covering identical services in Class 43.

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

<As for the opposed mark>
“BARMAN” is an English word meaning a bartender.  The mark is literally pronounced as [ba:-ma-n].

<As for the cited mark>
“BARMAR” is not a dictionary word, but a fancy word.  In this case, it will be natural that the mark is pronounced as [ba:-ma:] in English-wise which is a relatively familiar language to Japanese consumers.  The mark has no particular meaning. 

<Comparison>
- The opposed mark and the cited mark differ in the last letter, “N” v. “R”.   Such difference in spelling has a great influence visually as the marks have no more than 6 letters respectively.  The marks are distinguishable in appearance.
- The marks differ in the last sound, [an] v. [a:].  Such difference in sound has a great influence phonetically as the marks have no more than 4 sounds respectively.  The marks are distinguishable in sound.
- The marks are not comparable semantically as the cited mark has no particular meaning.  The marks are not likely to cause confusion in connotation.
- Overall, the marks are not confusingly similar to each other. 

And so the Board dismissed the opposition.