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 “stylized SAMTECH” not similar to “stylized SANTEC and device”.

The applicant filed a trademark application for “stylized SAMTECH” shown below designating fuel tanks for two-wheeled motor vehicles in Class 12.  The examiner refused the application, citing a prior registration for “stylized SANTEC and device” also shown below designating retail services or wholesale services for bicycles in Class 35.

<Applied-for mark>

<Cited mark>

According to the Examination Guidelines of Goods and Services, “retail/wholesale services for bicycles” in Class 35 is assumed similar to “fuel tanks for two-wheeled motor vehicles” in Class 12.  The main issue here is the similarity of the marks.

The Board analyzed the marks and found as follows:

<As for the applied-for mark>
The applied-for mark is highly stylized and is recognized as SAMTECH, which is a coined word and has no particular meaning.  The mark reads in English-wise and is pronounced [sa-mu-te-kku].

<As for the cited mark>
The cited mark is composed of a red sun-like design and stylized SANTEC.  SANTEC is not a dictionary word and has no particular meaning.  The mark is pronounced [sa-n-te-kku].

<Comparison>
- The marks differ from each other visually due to the differences: with or without design, spelling, color and font.
- The marks are likely to cause confusion phonetically as the only difference lies in the middle sound [mu] and [n], both of which are weak sound.
- The marks are not comparable semantically.
- Considering the impression, recollection and association given to consumers and traders comprehensively, the marks are not likely to cause confusion, and are not similar to each other.

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