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 “hilite.pro” is not confusingly similar to “HiLite”.

The applicant filed a trademark application for “hilite.pro” in standard character designating medical apparatus and instruments to exchange oxygen with carbon dioxide in blood, etc. in Class 10 and services in Class 42.　The examiner refused to register the mark, citing “HiLite” in standard character for photopolymerization devices for use in dentistry technology, etc. in Class 10.

The designated goods for Class 10 of the applied-for mark are related to those of the cited mark because the goods of both marks belong to the same category ”medical apparatus and instruments”.  Accordingly, 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 “hilite.pro” is written in same font and size, and appears unified.  The applied-for mark will be pronounced [hilitepro] without a break. 

- “pro” is a prefix of “professional”.  However, users and traders will not recognized that “pro” indicates the quality of goods, and “pro” alone will not disregarded.  The applied-for mark as a whole will be regarded as one term.  Therefore, the applied-for mark is not similar to the cited mark.

And so the Board reversed the refusal, and granted registration of “hilite.pro”.