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 “seasew” not similar to “seesaw Tokyo” logo.

The applicant filed an application for “seasew” in standard character designating clothing, footwear, etc. in Class 25.  The examiner refused the application on the ground that the applied-for mark is confusingly similar to “seesaw Tokyo” logo shown below covering identical goods in Class 25.

<Cited mark>

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

<As for the applied-for mark>
The applied-for mark “seasew” is a coined word and not a dictionary word.  The mark is pronounced [si:-so:] and has no particular meaning.

<As for the cited mark>
The cited mark is visually unified as a whole.  “tokyo” in the mark does not function as a source identifier as it reminds consumers of a geographical name, while “seesaw” functions as a source identifier.  Thus, the mark has sound [si:-so:] and meaning of seesaw (a kind of play equipment).

<Comparison>
- The marks are obviously distinguishable in appearance.
- The marks are identical in sound.
- The marks do not cause confusion in meaning as the applied-for mark has no particular meaning.
- Examining the above factors comprehensively, the marks are not confusing similar to each other.

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