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 “Lovely Pink” is descriptive or misdescriptive with respect to stationery, paper and cardboard, etc. in Class 16 and bags and pouches, etc. in Class 18.

The applicant filed a trademark application for “Lovely Pink” designating stationery, paper and cardboard, etc. in Class 16 and bags and pouches, etc. in Class 18.

The examiner refused the application on the grounds as follows:

The applied-for mark “Lovely Pink” is represented in a common manner.  Lovely pink will be regarded as a color name.  In fact, there are references in which lovely pink or its transliteration in katakana are used as a color name for pouches and mechanical pencils.  Accordingly, consumers and traders will recognized that the applied-for mark is a color name of the goods when used for pouches, bags and stationery.  Thus, the applied-for mark is descriptive when used for the pink-colored goods, and is misdescriptive when used for the goods of other colors.

The applicant filed an appeal and argued that “Lovely Pink” does not indicate a specific color and functions as a source identifier.

The Board reviewed the applied-for mark and confirmed that the term “lovely pink” is commonly used for pink-colored stationery, bags and pouches as well as for other various goods.  Therefore, the Board sustained the examiner’s refusal.