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 “BLUE” is descriptive for air purifying, air deodorizing and air filtering apparatus and installations; etc.

The applicant filed an international trademark application for “BLUE” designating air purifying, air deodorizing and air filtering apparatus and installations; water filtering, water treatment, water sterilizing and water purifying apparatus; etc. in Class 11.

The Examiner refused the application finding as follows:

- The word “BLUE” is commonly used to refer to color of goods.  Consumers and traders recognize that the word indicates the color of goods when it is used for the designated goods, and thus it does not function as a source identifier.  In conclusion, the applied-for mark falls under Section 3-1-3 of Trademark Act.

The Board analyzed the applied-for mark and found as follows:

- “BLUE” is a well-known English word in Japan.  In the relevant industry, transliteration of BLUE in katakana is, in fact, commonly used for goods in blue color.  Accordingly, consumers and traders merely regard the applied-for mark “BLUE” as an indication of the color of goods.  Therefore, the mark falls under Section 3-1-3 of Trademark Act.
- The applicant uses “Blueair” or its transliteration in katakana for air purifiers, but not “BLUE” alone as a source identifier.  Therefore, the applied-for mark “BLUE” has not acquired a secondary meaning.
- The applicant argues that consumers and traders will associate the word “BLUE” not only with color of goods but also with clear air to relieve a depressed mind because they are more interested in the function of air purifiers or water cleaners and not so much in the color of goods.  However, it is common that color variation is available in the said items, and consumers and traders often select goods by color preference.

And so the Board affirmed the refusal of “BLUE” to be descriptive.