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

Bottom line: The Board dismissed the opposition.

Samsung Everland Inc. applied for BIKEREPAIR with a device shown below in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25.  Bally Schuhfabriken AG filed an opposition citing its mark also shown below registered in Classes 3, 14, 18 and 25.  The opposition was grounded on relative grounds, confusing similarity to earlier registered mark (Section 4-1-11), likelihood of confusion with well-known mark (Section 4-1-15) and similarity to well-known mark with unfair purposes (Section 4-1-19).

<Opposed mark>

<Cited mark>

The Board reviewed the cases and found as follows:

1. As to Section 4-1-11:

The opposed mark consists of word element BIKEREPAIR and a device.  These elements can be visually separated and the device alone is capable of functioning as a source identifier.  Comparing the device element of the opposed mark with the cited mark, they share nail-shaped devices in white placed within black device in common.  However, due to the difference in the shape of the upper side, the devices are visually distinguishable and not confusingly similar to each other.

2. As to Section 4-1-15:

The Opponent claims use of the cited mark since 2000 in Japan, but none of the evidence shows use of the cited mark as a trademark.  In view of the difference of the devices at issue as mentioned above, the opposed mark is not likely cause confusion with the cited mark.

3. As to Section 4-1-19:

The marks at issue are not similar as mentioned above.  The opposed mark does not fall under Section 4-1-19.

And so the Board dismissed the opposition.