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 “REDSTER” not confusingly similar to “REDSTAR53”.

The applicant filed an international trademark application for “REDSTER” designating sports and gymnastic equipment, skies, ski poles etc. in Class 28 and other goods in Classes 9, 18 and 25.  The examiner cited “REDSTAR53” in standard character designating sporting articles in Class 28.

The designated goods of the applied-for mark are partially identical with those of the cited mark.  So, the question is whether the applied-for mark is similar to the cited mark or not.

The Board analyzed the marks and found as follows:

<As for the applied-for mark>
The applied-for mark “REDSTER” is not a dictionary word and has no particular meaning.  The mark is literally pronounced [re-ddo-su-ta:]. 

<As for the cited mark>
The cited mark is composed of “RED”, “STAR” and “53”.   Since numeral is commonly used as a model designation, “53” will not function as a source identifier or has little distinctiveness.  Accordingly, either “REDSTAR53” as a whole or “REDSTAR” will function as s source identifier.  Therefore, the cited mark is pronounced [re-ddo-su-ta:-go-jyu:-sa-n] of [re-ddo-su-ta:], and means “red star”.

<Comparison>
- The applied-for mark and the cited mark are significantly distinguishable in appearance.
- The marks share the sound [re-ddo-su-ta:].
- The marks are not similar in connotation.
- Despite the sound being identical, the marks are significantly different in appearance and not confusingly similar in connotation.  Considering these factors comprehensively, the marks are not similar to each other.

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