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 “PREMIUM WATER / HighQuality Water Delivery Service” is not inherently distinctive for drinking water in Class 32.

The applicant filed a trademark application for “PREMIUM WATER / HighQuality Water Delivery Service” shown below designating drinking water in Class 32.

<Applied-for mark>

The examiner refused the application on the ground as follows:

- The applied-for mark consists of “PREMIUM WATER”, a horizontal line and “HighQuality Water Delivery Service”.  Consumers and traders will recognize that the mark means “a delivery service for high-quality water” and that it is a catch phrase for sales promotion.  Accordingly, the mark does not function as a source identifier, and falls under Section 3-1-6 in the Trademark Act.

The Board reviewed the case and found as follows:

- The applied-for mark is divided into “PREMIUM WATER” and “HighQuality Water Delivery Service” by a horizontal line.  The entire mark is too long to pronounce it without a break.  So, consumers and traders will find “PREMIUM WATER” and “HighQuality Water Delivery Service” independent from each other.
- In the beverage industry, high-quality goods “xxx” are usually called “premium xxx”. Further, delivery services for drinking water are commonly provided.  Accordingly, consumers and traders will easily recognize that the mark as a whole means “a delivery service for high-quality water”.
- The horizontal line is merely regarded as a partition between the upper words and lower words, and will not grab attention of consumers and traders.
- Therefore, the applied-for mark will not function as a source identifier.

The applicant tried to prove acquired distinctiveness, however, the Board found that the argument is not supported by sufficient proofs.

And so the Board affirmed the examiner’s refusal.