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 BLACK★BLACK is not confusingly similar to BLACK & BLACK.

The applicant filed an application for BLACK BLACK with red star device shown below, designating hygienic hand towels of paper, towels of paper, stationery, etc. in Class 16 and woven textile goods for personal use in Class 24.

<Applied-for mark>

The examiner cited two prior registrations for BLACK & BLACK in block letter, one designating woven textile goods for personal use, etc. in Class 24 and the other designating stationery in Class 16.

As for the applied-for mark, the Board noted that the red star device and literal elements BLACK at each side are unified as a whole.  The red star device in the middle does not have any semantic connection with BLACK at each side.  The applied-for mark will be pronounced as [black black].  The word “black” may refer to the color of the goods, but in view of the composition of the applied-for mark, it rather emphasize “black” semantically.  The applied-for mark has connotation of “black”.

As for the cited mark, ampersand is commonly known and used to represent “and”.  The cited mark will bear sound and connotation corresponding to “black and black”.

Turning to comparison of the marks, the Board noted that the sound [black black] and [black and black] are different in the middle and phonetically distinguishable.  The connotation of “black” and “black and black” are not identical and the marks are not semantically similar.  Further, the marks are visually distinguishable due to the red star device and ampersand in the middle.  Accordingly, the Board found that the marks at issue are not confusingly similar to each other.

And so the Board reversed the refusal.