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 ORGANIC V is not similar to ORGANIC.

The applicant filed an application for ORGANIC V in standard character designating beer, extracts of hops for making beer, fruit juice beverages, whey beverages, etc. in Class 32.

The examiner cited 4 prior marks below, all incorporating ORGANIC and/or its transliteration in katakana.

<Cited marks>
No.1: organic and its transliteration in katakana in Classes 30 and 32

No.2:  in Classes 29 and 32

No.3: ORGANIC in katakana in Classes 5, 29 and 30

No.4:  in Class 29

The designated goods of the applied-for mark are identical or similar to those of the cited marks.  So the similarity of the marks is in dispute.

The Board recognized that “organic” is commonly used in the food industry to refer to products that are produced without the use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides or raised with organic feed.  Accordingly, the term “organic” in the applied-for mark will have little or no distinctiveness in connection with the designated goods.

The applied-for mark will be recognized ORGANIC V as a whole.  It is not appropriate to extract ORGANIC from the applied-for mark and compare it with the cited marks.  The Board denied the examiner’s opinion that the applied-for mark will have sound [organic] alone and the meaning “organic”.

And the Board reversed the refusal and allowed coexistence of ORGANIC V with ORGANIC (with or without device).