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 “+FiT” logo is not confusingly similar to “FIT”.

The applicant filed a trademark application for “+FiT” logo shown below designating earphones and headphones in Class 9.

<Applied-for mark>

The examiner refused to register the mark, citing “FIT” for telecommunication apparatus and instruments, etc. in Class 9.

The designated goods “earphones, headphones” of the applied-for mark are included in the category of “telecommunication apparatus and instruments” of the cited mark.  So the question is whether the marks are distinguishable or not.

The Board observed the applied-for mark and found as follows:

- The applied-for mark is composed of “+ (plus sign)” and “FiT”.  “+” and “FiT” differ in size, however the mark appears unified because they are presented in same round edge font.  Further, the mark as a whole is pronounced [plus fit].

- The designated goods “earphones, headphones” are put on ears or over the head, and the wear comfort of these goods is valued.  “FiT” means being the right size or shape to provide wear comfort.  Thus, “FiT” alone will not be extracted from the mark as a source identifier in trade, and the applied-for mark as a whole will function as a source identifier.

And so the Board reversed the refusal, and granted registration of “+FiT” logo.