  |
はてなキーワード: Japan Patent Officeとは
This case is a suit for rescission of a trial decision on a request for invalidation of trademark registration. The issues are (1)
(1) Whether the registered trademark (hereinafter referred to as "the trademark") (1) Whether or not the registered trademark (hereinafter referred to as the "Trademark") in the following paragraph (1) falls under the trademark
(2) Whether or not the trademark falls under Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law, (3) Whether or not the trademark falls under
(iii) Whether or not the trademark falls under Article 4(1)(xvi) of the Trademark Law.
The defendant is the owner of the following registered trademark (the "Trademark") (A-1-1 and A-2,
(A1-1 and A2; hereinafter referred to as the "Registered Trademarks"). (1) Registration number
(1) Registration number Trademark registration No. 6399042
(2) Date of registration May 24, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the "Date of Decision")
(3) Date of registration: June 7, 2021
(4) Trademark consists of the words "curly bangs curler" (standard characters)
(5) Classification of goods and services and designated goods
Class 26 "Headgear, hair curlers (excluding electric ones) (hereinafter referred to as "hair curlers")
15, Class 26 "Hair curlers (excluding electric ones)" (hereinafter the "goods in question") (Hereinafter, the "hair curlers (excluding electric ones)" in Class 26 of this Article are referred to as "the goods in question").
(2) Background of the proceedings before the Japan Patent Office
On June 2, 2022, the plaintiff filed a request for a trial for invalidation of the trademark registration for the goods in question.
The Japan Patent Office examined the case as invalidation case No. 2022-890041 (not disputed).
The Patent Office examined the case as Case No. 2022-890041, which is invalid (no dispute). The Patent Office examined the case as invalidation case No. 2022-890041 (no dispute).
On February 14, 2023, the JPO issued a decision that "the request for a trial in this case does not stand. (hereafter, "the trial decision").
(hereinafter referred to as "the trial decision"), and a transcript of the trial decision was filed. A certified copy of the decision was served upon the plaintiff on February 27, 2023 (summary of arguments).
The transcript of the trial decision was served upon the plaintiff on March 27, 2023 (summary of argument).
On March 27, 2023, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit seeking revocation of the trial decision.
3 Summary of reasons for the trial decision
25 (1) Applicability to Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law
(a) The trademark in this case represents the words "curly bangs curler" in standard characters.
The letters of the trademark are of the same size and typeface and are arranged in a horizontal line without any space between the letters.
The letters of the trademark should be "hair curler" and the letters of the trademark should be "hair curler".
The component characters of the trademark are "Spinning on a spur of the moment. The component characters of the trademark are "Spinning with a spritz.
The component characters of the trademark are "the state of spinning with a spur of the moment. (A8), which is an onomatopoeic word indicating "a bundle of hair on the forehead of a man or woman" (A9), and "a bundle of hair on the forehead of a man or woman" (A10).
(A8); the character for "bangs" (A11), which means "a bundle of hair on the forehead of a man or woman"; the character for "bangs" (A11), which means "a cylindrical piece of hair that is
The character for "curler" (A12), which means "a cylindrical tool for curling hair around the head", is used in the same way as the character for "curler" (A13).
The character for "curler" (A12), which means "a cylindrical tool for curling hair," is combined with the characters for "bangs" (A11) and "curler" (A12), which means "a cylindrical tool for curling hair.
The constituent characters as a whole are insufficient to specify the meaning of the word or sentence, and therefore, the meaning of each character is not clear.
Therefore, even though the letters may evoke vague meanings corresponding to the meanings of the letters, the specific meanings are not immediately recognizable or understandable.
Therefore, even if the words are associated with vague meanings corresponding to the meanings of the letters, they are not immediately recognizable or understandable as a quality indication of the goods.
The words lack specificity as an indication of the quality of the product.
