We are a boutique IP firm located in Osaka, Japan, specializing in trademark, design, specific unfair competition and copyright matters.

Bottom line: The Board affirmed the examiner’s refusal that BLACKBODY is not registrable as the mark is descriptive.

The applicant sought registration of BLACKBODY designating inter alia photographic, cinematographic, optical apparatus and instruments, television apparatus, etc. in Class 9; surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments, etc. in Class 10; lighting apparatus for vehicles, lighting apparatus and installations, lamps, etc. in Class 11; automobiles, bicycles, motorcycles, etc. in Class 12; furniture, etc. in Class 20 and scientific and technological services, etc. in Class 42.

The examiner refused the application on the ground that BLACKBODY is descriptive for the designated goods as it merely describes that the goods’ surface or body is black and indicates the qualities of the goods.

The applicant, not satisfied with the examiner’s decision, filed an appeal and argued that:
- the applied-for mark not only means “black surface (black body)” but also has other connotations, such as “black (human) body”, “a theoretically ideal radiator and absorber of energy”, etc., and thus it does not merely indicate the quality (color) of the goods.
- the applied-for mark is granted for registration in France, Australia, EU, South Korea, United States of America, China and Russia, and so should be in Japan.

The Board found as follows and rejected the applicant’s arguments:
- according to the references on Internet, BLACKBODY or its transliteration in katakana is used to describe the black appearance of products in connection with cameras, automobiles, binoculars, scooters, television apparatus, LED, flashlights, aquarium lights, lighting apparatus, headlights for motorcycle, office chairs, etc.  BLACKBODY or its transliteration in katakana is commonly used in the relevant industry to refer to black appearance of products.
- legislations of Japan and other countries are different in the details.  Registrability of the subject mark should be judged solely under Japan Trademark Act and the judgment shall not depend on the registration in other countries.

And so the Board affirmed the examiner’s refusal and dismissed the appeal.