We are a boutique IP firm located in Osaka, Japan, specializing in trademark, design, specific unfair competition and copyright matters.

Bottom line: The Board dismissed the opposition finding the marks at issue are not confusingly similar nor likely to cause confusion.

Pinterest Inc. applied for P logo shown below in Classes 9, 35, 38, 42 and 45, against which Path Inc. filed an opposition citing its mark also shown below registered in Class 9.  The opposition was based on relative grounds, confusing similarity to earlier registered mark (Section 4-1-11) and likelihood of confusion with well-known mark (Section 4-1-15).

<Opposed mark>

<Cited mark>

The Board reviewed the cases and found as follows:

1. As to Section 4-1-11:

The Board noted that the opposed mark is a soft traversable brush writing and will be recognized as an abstract figure without any specific sound and connotation, rather than stylized P.  And the cited mark is a device mark composed of a stylized P with its tail 90-degree bent to the left within red circle.  The cited mark does not have any specific sound and connotation either.

The overall impression of the opposed mark, soft traversable brush writing, is significantly different from that of the cited mark, device mark of stylized P within red circle.  There is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks when viewed sequentially in a different time and place.  Thus, the marks are not similar in appearance.  And the marks are not similar in sound and connotation as neither has particular sound or connotation.

Accordingly, the opposed mark is not similar to the cited mark in terms of appearance, sound and connotation.

2. As to Section 4-1-15:

The Board went through all the evidences submitted by the Opponent and found that only two of them show use of the cited mark in Japan before the filing date of the opposed mark, and that the mark in use is a combined mark of the cited mark with PATH.  The evidences submitted by the Opponent are not sufficient for the Board to recognize that the cited mark is well-known in Japan for computer software for social networking.

Further, as found above, the opposed mark is not similar to the cited mark.

Accordingly, the Board found that there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposed mark and the cited mark.

And so the Board dismissed the opposition.