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 VACS is not confusingly similar to BAX and device.

The applicant filed an application for VACS in standard character designating various telecommunications apparatus and instruments.  The examiner refused to register the mark, citing BAX and device shown below also designating various telecommunications apparatus and instruments:

<Cited mark>

(For clarification, Japanese language does not have clear distinction between the sound V and B, thus VACS and BAX are pronounced identically.)

The Board noted that the applied-for mark will be pronounced [ba-kku-su] or each alphabet separately as [v-a-c-s], and has no specific meaning, whereas the cited mark will be pronounced [ba-kku-su] or [b-a-x] and no specific meaning will engender from the word or the device.

The Board found that the marks are not comparable semantically and distinguishable visually. And phonetically, although one of the probable pronunciations is identical, the other pronunciation is quite different.  Overall, with visual difference and possible distinction in sound, the Board found that the applied-for mark gives significantly different impression, recollection and association from the cited mark and concluded that the applied-for mark is not confusingly similar to the cited mark.

And so the Board reversed the refusal.