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 “chairs” in Class 20 is related to “steel archives” in Class 20.

The applicant filed an application for Monarch and its transliteration in katakana designating chairs in Class 20.

The examiner cited a prior mark MONARCH and its transliteration in katakana designating steel archives in Class 20.  According to the JPO’s Examination Guidelines of Goods and Services, “chairs” and “steel archives” are presumed related to each other under the same similarity code.

The marks are literally identical, so the question is whether the goods are related or not.

The Board defined “chair” as furniture to sit on, and it includes office chairs, folding chairs, stools, etc. that are commonly used at offices and commercial establishment, and noted that these chairs are made of wood, bamboo, plastic, metal, steel, etc.  On the other hand, “steel archive” is cabinet, locker and book shelf made of steel and can be categorized into furniture in Class 20.

“Furniture” in Class 20 is interpreted to refer not only to those of home use but also to those used at offices and commercial establishment.  Accordingly, both “chairs” and “steel archives” are categorized into furniture in Class 20.  And “chairs” and “steel archives” made of the same material, may share the point of use and consumers.  There are many evidences that one manufacturer manufactures or sells both items.

Accordingly, “chairs” and “steel archives” are related to each other and the marks are identical.  The Board found the applied-for mark is not registrable.

And so the Board affirmed the refusal.