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 “iVAS” is not confusingly similar to stylized “IBAS”.

The applicant filed an application for “iVAS” shown below designating computer software for radiation therapy plan supporting system, laboratory apparatus and instruments, etc. in Class 9.  The examiner refused to register the mark, citing stylized “IBAS” also shown below for laboratory apparatus and instruments, electronic machines, apparatus and their parts in class 9.  The case was brought to the Appeal Board.

* In Japanese, the sound “VA” and “BA” are the same.

<Applied-for mark>

<Cited mark>

The designated goods of the applied-for mark are partially 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 both marks and found as follows:

- The applied-for mark is composed of “i” and “VAS” and pronounces [i-vas].
- The cited mark is composed of a longitudinal trapezoid, a monogram of B and A and stylized S.  With such composition, the cited mark will not be regarded as a word mark but as a unique design.  The part BAS may possibly be recognized as letters, however the longitudinal trapezoid cannot be recognized as a particular letter.  Thus, the cited mark bears no particular sound.
- The marks are not identical in sound.

Accordingly, the Board concluded that the marks are not similar and reversed the refusal.