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 LIPRIDIA is confusingly similar to REPLIDEA.

The applicant filed an application for LIPRIDIA in standard character designating pharmaceutical preparations in Class 5.  The examiner refused to register the mark, citing REPLIDEA also designating pharmaceutical preparations in Class 5.

The Board analyzed the marks and found as follows:

<As for the sound and meaning of the marks>
The applied-for mark will be pronounced [ri-pu-ri-di-a] and has no specific meaning, whereas the cited mark will be pronounced [ri-pu-ri-di-a] or [re-pu-ri-di-a] and has no specific meaning.

 * In Japan, “L” and “R” are not distinguished from each other in sound.

<Comparison>
- The marks are composed of 8 letters sharing 4 of 8 letters, and are represented in a similar font.  The different letters will not have much influence on similarity assessment of the marks.
- The marks share one of the sounds [ri-pu-ri-di-a].
- Comparing the sound [ri-pu-ri-di-a] of the applied-for mark with the other sound [re-pu-ri-di-a] of the cited mark, the suffix 4 sounds are identical, and the first sounds [ri] and [re] are similar.  Accordingly, the marks as a whole are confusingly similar in sound.
- The marks are not comparable in meaning.
- Considering these factors comprehensively, the marks are confusingly similar to each other.

And so the Board affirmed the refusal.