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 “GearS” is not confusingly similar to “GEAR4”.

The applicant filed a trademark application for stylized “GearS” shown below designating wearable computer peripheral apparatus, smartphones in the shape of a watch, etc. in Class 9.　The examiner refused to register the mark, citing “GEAR4” for computer and computer peripheral apparatus for multimedia, etc. in Class 9.

<Applied-for mark>

The designated goods of the applied-for mark are clearly related to those of the cited mark.  Accordingly, 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 “Gear” and a gentle curve shaped like “S”.
- The cited mark is composed of alphabets and numerals, which are written in the same size and font.  The mark is unified as a whole and can be pronounced [gear four] without a break.
- “GEAR” means device and “4” is usually used as a code number.  So, both “GEAR” and “4” are weak in their distinguishness, and the cited mark as a whole functions as a source identifier.
- The applied-for mark is not similar to the cited mark.

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