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 stylized “auto mower” is not descriptive for robotic lawn mowers in Class 7, batteries for robotic lawn mowers, etc. in Class 9, and repair of robotic lawn mowers, etc. in Class 37, and is not misdescriptive of their quality.

The applicant filed a trademark application for stylized “auto mower” shown below designating robotic lawn mowers in Class 7 and the relevant goods and services in Classes 9 and 37.

<Applied-for mark>

The examiner refused the application on the ground as follows: 
- The applied-for mark “auto mower” is stylized, but is in a common manner.
- The mark as a whole means an automatic lawn mower.
- The mark is understood to describe the quality of goods when used for auto-robotic lawn mowers and/or batteries for auto-robotic lawn mowers, etc.  The mark is likely to be misdescriptive of goods when used for the goods other than those.

The applicant filed an appeal and the Board observed the applied-for mark and found as follows:
- The applied-for mark is stylized characteristically.  That is, all the letters of the mark are written in slanted font, each letter of “auto” and “-wer” are connected with underline, and each letter of “mow-” are connected with upperline.
- Accordingly, the mark are not represented in a common manner and will function as a source identifier.

And so the Board reversed the refusal, and the application for stylized “auto mower” was granted for registration.