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 HIROKO with monogram is not similar to HIROKO COLLECTION.

The applicant applied for HIROKO with monogram shown below designating clothing and footwear, etc. in Class 25.  The examiner refused to register the mark, citing an earlier registration for HIROKO COLLECTION designating identical goods.

<Applied-for mark>

The issue is whether the marks are confusingly similar or not and the Board found as follows:

The applied-for mark consists of a monogram of H and i and literal element HIROKO.  HIROKO is a common presentation of a female name using Latin alphabet, engenders connotation as such and has sound [hi-ro-ko], but it is highly weak in its distinctiveness.  Accordingly, the dominant element of the applied-for mark is the monogram.

The cited mark is HIROKO COLLECTION written in the same font, same size and equally spaced.  The sound [hi-ro-ko-ko-re-ku-sho-n] can be pronounced in one breath naturally.  As mentioned above, the first word HIROKO in the cited mark is a common presentation of a female name and is highly weak in its distinctiveness. Further, COLLECTION refers to a presentation event or range of works in the clothing industry and is also a weak mark.  Accordingly, the cited mark will be recognized as a whole and the latter element COLLECTION will not be disregarded.  The cited mark will be pronounced [hi-ro-ko-ko-re-ku-sho-n] and has meaning of “works of Hiroko”.

The Board found that the examiner’s decision that the cited mark may be pronounced [hi-ro-ko] as well and means “Hiroko (female name)” is not appropriate.

And so the Board reversed the refusal and allowed registration of HIROKO with monogram.