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 stylized MIA is distinguishable from stylized MIA JEWELRY.

The applicant filed an application for stylized MIA shown first below designating clocks and watches and parts and accessories thereof, watch bands in Class 14.  The examiner refused to register the mark, citing an earlier registration for stylized MIA JEWELRY shown second below also designating clocks and watches, etc. in Class 14.

<Applied-for mark>


<Cited mark>

The Board analyzed the two marks and found as follows:

The applied-for mark is composed of stylized Latin alphabets MIA.  It will be pronounced [mi-a] and understood as a fancy word having no particular meaning.

The cited mark is composed of stylized Latin alphabets MIA and JEWELRY.  The word “jewelry”, meaning adornment, is inherently distinctive with respect to clocks and watches, and is capable of functioning as a source identifier.  The Board found that MIA alone is not dominant in the cited mark.  Accordingly, the cited mark will have sound [mi-a-ju-e-ri:].

Comparing the marks in their appearance, sound and connotation, the Board concluded that the marks are not confusingly similar in any aspect.

And so the Board reversed the refusal.