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 “camera modules” in Class 9 are not related to “jewelry adorned headphone covers” in Class 9.

The applicant filed a trademark application for “DEOS” in standard character designating camera modules, camera modules for code reader, camera modules for surveillance camera and camera modules for digital camera, etc. in Class 9.  The examiner refused the application, citing a registration for “DEOS” in standard character designating jewelry adorned headphone covers in Class 9.  The examiner’s decision is based on the presumption that “camera modules” are related to “jewelry adorned headphone covers” in accordance with the Examination Guidelines of Goods and Services under the same similarity code 11B01.

The marks are identical.  So, the main issue is whether the designated goods are similar to each other.

The Board referred to the following decision made by IP High Court:

[IP High Court, Case No. H19 (Gyo-Ke) 10042, (September 26, 2007)]
The relativity of the designated goods should be decided based on nature, intended purpose, shape, raw material, production process, sales channel, range of consumers, etc. (i.e. the actual state of the transaction) of the goods as well as other circumstances which may cause confusion among the consumers and traders as to the origin of the goods.

In view of the criteria shown in the above decision, the Board found as follows:

“Camera modules” are devices mounted on products with photographing function of digital image, such as cell-phones, smartphones, laptop computers and digital cameras.  The camera modules are sold to certain end product manufacturers, such as cell-phone manufacturers.

On the other hand, “jewelry adorned headphone covers” are earphone covers decorated with jewelry (crystal glass), and are sold to end users (general consumers).

Therefore, “camera modules” and “jewelry adorned headphone covers” differ in their nature, intended purpose, shape, raw material, production process, sales channel and range of consumers.  In addition, they are not complementary goods.  Thus, these two items are not related to each other.

And so the Board reversed the refusal.