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 “SUPER IMPACT” logo is not confusingly similar to “impact” logo and “IMPACT”.

The applicant filed a trademark application for “SUPER IMPACT” logo shown below designating gut for rackets in Class 28.

<Applied-for mark>

The examiner cited the following two marks and refused to register the applied-for mark on the ground of confusing similarity:

- Cited mark 1: “impact” logo also shown below designating knee-pads for volleyball, sporting articles, etc. in Class 28

<Cited mark 1>

- Cited mark 2: “IMPACT” in standard character designating sporting articles, etc. in Class 28

The designated goods “gut for rackets” of the applied-for mark are included in the category of “sporting articles” of the cited marks.  So the question is whether the marks are distinguishable or not.

The Board observed the marks and found as follows:

<As for the applied-for mark>
The applied-for mark is represented in cracked letters and appears unified.  The mark can be pronounced [super impact] without a break.  Accordingly, “IMPACT” will not be extracted from the mark, and the mark as a whole will function as a source identifier.  Moreover, The mark has no particular meaning because it as a whole is regarded as a fancy term.

<As for the cited mark>
Both cited marks are pronounced [impact] and mean “striking”.

<Comparison>
The applied-for mark and the cited marks are clearly distinguishable in appearance.  The marks are clearly distinguishable in sound because they have the difference in number and structure of sound.  The marks are not comparable in meaning.  Therefore, the marks are not similar to each other.

And so the Board reversed the refusal, and granted registration of “SUPER IMPACT” logo.