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 “PROMISE DIAMOND” is not confusingly similar to “PROMISE with its transliteration in katakana”

The applicant filed a trademark application for “PROMISE DIAMOND” in standard character designating jewelry ornaments, jewelry, precious metals, etc. in Class 14, retail / wholesale services for jewelry ornaments and jewelry, etc. in Class 35 and rental of jewelry ornaments for wedding, etc. in Class 45. The examiner refused to register the mark, citing “PROMISE with its transliteration in katakana” shown below for Jewelry etc. in Class 14.

<Cited mark>

The designated goods/services 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 applied-for mark and found as follows:

The applied-for mark “PROMISE DIAMOND” is integrally presented in standard character, and the mark as a whole means “promised diamond”.  The mark can be pronounced [promise diamond] without a break.  So, the mark will be recognized as a whole even if “DIAMOND” of the mark indicates the material of the designated goods.  The mark will not evoke the sound [promise] and the meaning “promise”.

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