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 “Samsung OneLine” logo not confusingly similar to “ONE LINE”.

The applicant filed a trademark application for “Samsung OneLine” logo shown below designating television receivers connectable to other apparatus via one line, DVD players connectable to other apparatus via one line, etc. in Class 9.  The examiner refused to register the mark, citing “ONE LINE” for telecommunication machines and apparatus in Class 9. 

<Applied-for mark>

All the designated goods of the applied-for mark are included in 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 applied-for mark and found as follows:

- The applied-for mark is composed of “Samsung”, “OneLine” (One is in orange), a blue square and a red line.  “Samsung” and “OneLine” are written in the same font, and the left end of the red line is justified with the left side of “Samsung” and “OneLine”.  Therefore, the mark will be unified as a whole in appearance.
- “OneLine” means a single line, and the figure part of the mark is clearly seen as an apparatus connectable via one line.  So, “OneLine” and the figure part are weak as a source identifier.
- “Samsung” is well-known to consumers in the relevant industry.
- There is no circumstance that shows “OneLine” functions independently as a source identifier.
- The mark will be pronounced [samsung one line] or [samsung].
- The mark as a whole has no particular meaning, however “Samsung” creates the meaning “Samsung’s products”.
- Overall, the applied-for mark is not similar to the cited mark.

And so the Board reversed the refusal, and granted registration of “Samsung OneLine” logo.