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 the difference in stylization is sufficient to distinguish AGEHA marks.

The applicant filed an application for Ageha in the stylized form shown below, designating footwear in Class 25.  The examiner cited the prior mark also shown below, designating footwear in Class 25 and retail/wholesale services for footwear in Class 35.

<Applied-for mark>

<Cited mark>

The Board acknowledged that the applied-for mark can be recognized as a stylized AGEHA and will be pronounced [a-ge-ha] meaning “swallowtail butterfly”.  The Board, on the other hand, analyzed the cited mark as follows: the cited mark is composed of alphabet-like elements and the first and the last elements can be recognized as stylized A, but it is difficult to make out what the rest elements say.  Accordingly, the cited mark does not have any particular sound and meaning.

The Board found that the marks at issue are visually different and not similar phonetically and semantically, and concluded that the two marks are not confusingly similar to each other.

And so the Board reversed the refusal.