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 applied-for mark is not similar to the cited mark.

The applicant filed an application for stylized Dio shown below designating catheters in Class 10.  The examiner refused to register the mark, citing an earlier registration for DIO also shown below designating dental implant and other dental apparatus and instruments in Class 10.

<Applied-for mark>

<Cited mark>

The Board analyzed the two marks and found as follows:

As for the applied-for mark, the letter in the left can be recognized as D, but the rest is highly stylize and is no longer recognizable as specific alphabets.  In view of such composition, the applied-for mark is a figurative mark as a whole having no sound and connotation.

The cited mark consists of D and I in gray and a circle with a dot in pink.  The literal element, D and I has no relevance with the following device element and each element is in different color.  Accordingly, the cited mark will be recognized as a combination of letters and device, having no specific sound and connotation.

Comparing the marks, there is no visual similarity as the two marks have distinguishable differences, and the marks are not similar in sound and connotation as neither has specific sound and connotation.  Overall, the marks are not confusingly similar.

And so the Board reversed the refusal.