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 POLE is not similar to PAUL.

The applicant filed an application for POLE designating laundry detergents in Class 3.  The examiner refused to register the mark, citing an earlier registration for PAUL designating inter alia detergents and laundry preparations in Class 3.

The Board analyzed the two marks and found as follows:

The applied-for mark is an English word meaning long rod and is pronounced [po:-ru].  The cited mark is a male name and is pronounced [po:-ru].

The two marks are visually distinguishable due to the difference of the spelling.  The sound of the marks are identical.  And the marks are not similar semantically as each mark has different meaning.  Overall, the marks share the same sound but are quite different in their appearance and connotation.  Accordingly, the marks are not confusingly similar.

And so the Board reversed the refusal and allowed coexistence of POLE and PAUL.