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 STEC not similar to ESTECH.

The applicant applied for STEC in standard character designating computer hardware and software, etc. in Class 9.

The examiner cited ESTECH logo shown below also designating computer software and other electronic machines and apparatus in Class 9.

<Cited mark>

The Board found that STEC will be pronounced [su-te-kku] or [e-su-te-kku] while ESTECH will be [e-su-te-kku] or [i:-e-su-te-kku].  Neither mark is a dictionary word and has any specific meaning.

Visually, the marks are obviously different and easily distinguishable.

Phonetically, one of the possible sounds of the applied-for mark [e-su-te-kku] is identical with that of the cited mark, but different from the other possible sound of the cited mark [i:-e-su-te-kku].  Further, the other possible sound [su-te-kku] is different from [e-su-te-kku] or [i:-e-su-te-kku].

Semantically, the marks are not similar as neither has any specific meaning.

The Board has given comprehensive consideration to the impression, recollection and association attributed to the visual difference and semantic non-similarity of the marks at issue, and concluded that the applied-for mark is not confusingly similar to the cited mark despite the fact that the marks share one of the two possible sounds in common.

And so the Board reversed the refusal.