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 “Reebok ROYAL FLAG” logo is not confusingly similar to “ROYAL FLAG” logo.

The applicant filed a trademark application for “Reebok ROYAL FLAG” logo shown below designating footwear, boots for sports, etc. in Class 25.

<Applied-for mark>


The examiner cited the following mark designating footwear, etc. and refused to register the applied-for mark on the ground of confusing similarity.

<Cited mark>

Both the applied-for mark and the cited mark designate footwear.  So the question is whether the marks are confusingly similar or not.

The Board observed the marks and found as follows:

<As for the applied-for mark>
The applied-for mark is composed of “Reebok” in unique font, flag design and “ROYAL FLAG” in small Gothic script.  The mark as a whole is pronounced [reebok royal flag].  “Reebok” is well-known in Japan as the brand name of the applicant.  So, the mark is also pronounced [reebok].  The mark as a whole means “a series of goods named “ROYAL FLAG” sold by Reebok”.  Further, it also means “Reebok”.  “ROYAL FLAG” is smaller than “Reebok”, and is written in simple Gothic script.  Accordingly “ROYAL FLAG” does not create as dominant impression as “Reebok”.  Therefore, it is not proper to extract “ROYAL FLAG” from the applied-for mark and compare it to the cited mark.  Rather, the applied-for mark as a whole or “Reebok” extracted from it should be compared to the cited mark.

<As for the cited mark>
The cited mark is written in the same font, but “R” and “F” are enlarged.  The mark is pronounced [royal flag] and means “a royal flag”.

<Comparison>
The applied-for mark and the cited marks share “ROYAL FLAG”, however the marks as a whole are different in appearance.  The marks are distinguishable in sound and meaning.

<Actual circumstances of the trading>
The applicant has several bland names, i.e. “EASYTONE”, “PUMP”, “FREESTYLE”, “SKYSCAPE”, almost all of which are used with “Reebok”.

 In conclusion, considering the difference of appearance, sound and meaning and the actual circumstances of the trading, the applied-for mark and the cited marks are not similar to each other.

And so the Board reversed the refusal, and granted registration of “Reebok ROYAL FLAG” logo.