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 “UNJOUR STRAWBERRY FIELDS” is not similar to “ENJOUR” or “un jour” logo.

The applicant filed a trademark application for “UNJOUR STRAWBERRY FIELDS” below designating personal ornaments, clocks and watches, etc. in Class 14, bags, umbrellas, etc. in Class 18, clothing, footwear, etc. in Class 25 and retail services or wholesale services for the aforementioned goods in Class 35.  The examiner cited five earlier registrations below and refused the application on the ground that the marks are similar to each other.

<Applied-for mark>

<Cited mark 1>

<Cited marks 2 and 3>

<Cited mark 4>

<Cited mark 5>

The designated goods and services of the applied-for mark are identical or similar to the designated goods of the cited marks.  So the question is whether the marks are distinguishable or not.

The Board observed the applied-for mark and found as follows:
- The applied-for mark is presented in same font and size, and is unified as a whole.
- Both “STRAWBERRY” and “FIELDS” in the applied-for mark are a plain English word.  Consumers and traders may recognize “UNJOUR” as a French word for “un jour” is a French term and French is often used in the fashion industry.  Thus, the applied-for mark consists of French word “UNJOUR” and English term “STRAWBERRY FIELDS”.
- Neither “UNJOUR” nor “STRAWBERRY FIELDS” gives a strong impression and both are equivalently capable of functioning as a source identifier.  Accordingly, “UNJOUR” does not solely function as a source identifier.  The applied-for mark has a sequential sound [unjour strawberry field] and means a strawberry field of one day.
- Therefore, it was not proper that the examiner extracted “UNJOUR” from the applied-for mark and found it similar to the cited marks.

So the Board reversed the refusal, and granted registration of “UNJOUR STRAWBERRY FIELDS”.

In addition to the similarity refusal, the examiner raised another ground for refusal questioning veracity of use or intention to use the applied-for mark.  The applicant submitted a declaration to show its intent to use, and the refusal was waived.