We are a boutique IP firm located in Osaka, Japan, specializing in trademark, design, specific unfair competition and copyright matters.

Bottom line: The Board dismissed the opposition finding that the marks at issue are not confusingly similar.

ThreeBond Co., Ltd. applied for a stylized B in a dark circle shown below designating food products in Classes 29 and 30 and restaurant services in Class 43, which was registered without any office action.  Betjeman & Barton filed an opposition against ThreeBond’s registration with respect to tea in Class 30, citing its prior mark also shown below registered for tea in Class 30 and other goods/services in Classes 5, 30 and 43.  The opposition was based on confusing similarity (Section 4-1-11).

<opposed mark>


<cited mark>

The Board reviewed the case and found as follows:

The opposed mark consists of B in Edwardian script placed in a dark circle.  The letter B in Edwardian script alone is too simple and not distinctive enough.  Accordingly, the opposed mark functions as a source identifier as a whole with the background circle.  The opposed mark will not have any particular sound and meaning.

The cited mark is a monogram mark consisting of B in Edwardian script and slightly smaller mirror-reversed B.  The cited mark will be recognized as a whole, since no particular part will be extracted from the cited mark.  The cited mark will not have any particular sound and meaning.

Comparing the marks in their entireties, the Board noted that the marks differ significantly in terms of appearance, and that the marks are not confusingly similar in terms of sound and meaning as they are not comparable.

The opponent claimed that the cited mark had been used for tea and become well-known among consumers and traders.  However, the opponent did not submit any specific evidence, such as sales amount and advertising materials.  Thus, the Board did not consider any special market situation based on that the cited mark is well-known.

And so the Board dismissed the opposition.