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 two device marks at different angle not confusingly similar.

The applicant filed an application for a device mark shown below designating various optical cables in Class 9.  The examiner’s citation is also shown below designating electric wires and cables, etc. in Class 9.

<Applied-for mark>


<Cited mark>

The Board found that the applied-for mark is a circle device divided vertically.  The applied-for mark does not have any particular sound and connotation.

The cited mark consists of a circle device divided horizontally and of literal element Delco.  The device element of the cited mark does not have sound and connotation, and the literal element has sound [de-ru-ko] and no meaning.  The Board noted that the device element and the literal element of the cited mark can function as a source identifier individually.

The Board compared the device of each mark and found that both marks consist of divided circle but the difference of separation being vertical or horizontal has no small effect on the visual impression of each mark.  The two devices are different when viewed sequentially in a different time and place.

And so the Board reversed the refusal.