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 “MOLL” logo is not confusingly similar to “Mole RICHARDSON” logo and “MOLE”.

The applicant filed an international trademark application for “MOLL” logo shown below designating batteries, solar batteries, etc. in Class 9 and services in Class 37.

<Applied-for mark>

The examiner refused to register the mark, citing the following two prior marks among others:
- The cited mark 1 is “Mole RICHARDSON” logo shown below designating batteries and cells, etc. in Class 9 and goods in Class 11.

<Cited mark 1>


- The cited mark 2 is “MOLE” designating batteries and cells, etc. in Class 9 and goods in Class 11.

The designated goods of the applied-for mark are partially identical with those of the cited marks.  So, the question is whether the applied-for mark is similar to the cited marks or not.

The Board analyzed the marks and found as follows:

<As for the applied-for mark>
- The applied-for mark is written in red and white, and “M” is in lower-case.
- The mark is pronounced [mo-ru].  The mark has no particular meaning because it is not a familiar word in Japan.

<As for the cited mark 1>
“RICHARDSON” is closely placed under the “ole”.  “RICHARDSON” is a family name.  The mark as a whole is pronounced [mo:-ru-ri-cha:-do-so-n] and means a full name “Mole Richardson”.

< As for the cited mark 2>
The mark is pronounced [mo:-ru] and means a mole (a kind of mammalian).

<Comparison of the applied-for mark and the cited mark 1>
- The applied-for mark is visually different from the cited mark 1.
- The marks are distinguishable in sound as the number and structure of sound significantly differ from each other.
- The marks are not likely to be confused in meaning.

<Comparison of the applied-for mark and the cited mark 2>
- The applied-for mark is significantly distinguishable from the cited mark 2 in appearance.
- The marks are distinguishable in sound because the difference with or without a prolonged sound at the beginning is significant when compared within rather short terms.
- The marks are not likely to be confused in meaning.

Therefore, the applied-for mark is not confusingly similar to the cited marks 1 and 2.

And so the Board reversed the refusal and granted registration of “MOLL” logo.