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 “INSIGHT” not similar to “Incyte” logo.

The applicant filed an application for “INSIGHT” in standard character designating clinical examination, hospitals, providing medical information, etc. in Class 44.  The examiner refused the application, citing a registration for “Incyte” logo designating providing information relating to viral, hematological, ontological, auto-immune, inflammatory, metabolic and dermatological disorder via a web site in Class 44 and the other goods and services in Classes 5 and 42.

<Cited mark>

The designated services of the applied-for mark are related to those of the cited registration.  So, the main issue is whether the applied-for mark is similar to the cited mark or not.

The Board compared both marks and found as follows:

<As for the applied-for mark>
“INSIGHT” is an English dictionary word and is pronounced [i-n-sa-i-to].

<As for the cited mark>
- The cited mark consists of “Incyte” and two circular arcs. The right arc reaches to letter “n” and the left arc to letter “t”.
- “Incyte” is a fancy word and has no particular meaning.  And the mark is pronounced [i-n-sa-i-to] in English-wise as English is familiar to Japanese people.

<Comparison>
- The marks are significantly different in appearance.
- The marks are identical in sound.
- The marks are not similar in meaning as “Incyte” of the cited mark has no particular meaning.
- Considering all the various factors including impression, recollection and association, the marks are not similar to each other despite the identical sound.

And so the Board reversed the refusal, and granted registration of “INSIGHT”.