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 “MiiCA and its transliteration in katakana” not similar to “miica logo”.

The applicant filed an application for “MiiCA and its transliteration in katakana” shown below designating mobile telephones; telecommunication machines and apparatus; electronic machines, apparatus and their parts; etc. in Class 9 and services in Classes 35, 38, 42 and 45.  The examiner refused the application on the ground that the applied-for mark is confusingly similar to “miica logo” also shown below covering identical goods in Class 9.

<Applied-for mark>

<Cited mark>

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

<As for the applied-for mark>
Neither “MiiCA” nor “its transliteration in katakana” are dictionary words and they have no particular meaning.  The transliteration in katakana identifies the sound of the mark.  Thus, the mark is pronounced [mi-i-ka].

<As for the cited mark>
The cited mark is composed of stylized “m” in orange, a figure in white and stylized “ca” in orange, all elements black-rimmed.  The figure in white consists of an arrow pointing upward, two circles and two ovals.  The figure is so outstanding that it has strong impact on consumers.  Even though the figure reminds the consumers of stylized “ii”, it will not be recognized apart from its visual feature.  Thus, the appearance of the mark functions as a source identifier and the mark has neither sound nor meaning.

<Comparison>
- The marks are obviously distinguishable in appearance.
- The marks do not cause confusion in sound and meaning as the cited mark has no sound and meaning.
- Overall, the marks are not confusing similar to each other.

And so the Board reversed the refusal, and granted registration of “MiiCA and its transliteration in katakana”.