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 “SPACCIO” is not confusing similar to “SPASIO with its transliteration in katakana”.

The applicant filed an application for “SPACCIO” designating cosmetics, soaps, etc. in Class 3.  The examiner cited “SPASIO with its transliteration in katakana” shown below, for cosmetics, soaps, etc. in Class 3, and refused the application on the grounds of similarity.

<Cited mark>

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

The Board analyzed the marks and found as follows:

<As for the applied-for mark>
- The applied-for mark “SPACCIO” is listed in an Italian-Japanese dictionary, meaning “shop” or “selling”, however it is not a familiar word in Japan.  Thus, “SPACCIO” is recognized as a fancy word, which has no particular meaning.
- The mark is pronounced [su-pa-cchi-o] or [su-pa-ssi-o].

<As for the cited mark>
- The cited mark “SPASIO” is not a dictionary word and is a fancy word, which has no particular meaning.
- The mark is pronounced [su-pa-si-o].

<Comparison>
- The applied-for mark and the cited mark are clearly distinguishable in appearance.  “SPACCIO” and “SPASIO” are different in the total number of the letters and the middle letters “CC” and “S”.
- The applied-for mark has a double consonant and sound [cchi] or [ssi], while the cited mark does not have double consonant and has sound [si].  The marks are distinguishable in sound.
- The marks are not comparable semantically.
- The marks are distinguishable in every aspect, are not similar to each other.

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