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 BISTRO BEE logo is confusingly similar to the stylized BEE.

The applicant filed an application for BISTRO BEE logo shown below designating various food products in Class 30 and restaurant services in Class 43.  The examiner refused to register the mark, citing stylized BEE also shown below designating restaurant services in Class 43.

<Applied-for mark>


<Cited mark>

The Board noted that BISTRO included in the applied-for mark is a French word meaning a small restaurant or pub and it is commonly used in the restaurant industry in Japan as a part of the name of restaurant, and the word BISTRO is often omitted when referring to such restaurants.  The consumers will understand that BISTRO merely refers to the location or matter of services provided.  In addition, BEE is written twice as large as BISTRO in the applied-for mark.  Accordingly, BEE will be the dominant element of the mark.

Apart from the lower/upper case difference, the dominant element of the applied-for mark BEE and the cited mark Bee are spelled the same, sharing the same sound and connotation.

The applicant argued that BISTRO BEE can be seen as unified with help of its katakana version right below.  However, the Board was not convinced and held that BEE is the dominant portion.

The applicant further argued that the applicant provides foods using honey under the applied-for mark, and the applicant’s restaurant has totally different concept, atmosphere and target consumers from the dining and dart bar Bee.  Again, the Board did not agree because the lists of services of both marks are identical and no such limitation is recorded.

And so the Board found the marks are similar and affirmed the refusal.