This case illustrates how the Japan Patent Office (JPO) evaluates similarity when two marks share the same pronunciation but differ in spelling and meaning.
It demonstrates that identical pronunciation alone does not necessarily lead to a finding of similarity, particularly in technical fields.

1. Application Details

• Mark: Frush
• Application No.: Japanese Trademark Application No. 2023-96516
• Designated Goods: Optical and laser-related devices in Class 9, including laser light sources, optical modulators, and communication equipment.

2. Refusal by the JPO Examiner

The application was refused under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japanese Trademark Act (likelihood of confusion with prior registered trademarks).

The examiner cited the following earlier trademarks:

• Cited Mark 1:
  • Mark: FLASH
  • Registration No.: 4335017
  • Designated Goods: Various goods in Class 9
• Cited Mark 2:
  • Mark: FLASH
  • Registration No.: 5801713
  • Designated Goods/Services: Goods and services in Classes 9, 41, and 42

The examiner concluded that:

• “Frush” and “FLASH” share the same pronunciation (“flash”), and
• therefore the marks are similar.

3. Appeal to the JPO Trial and Appeal Board

An appeal was filed against the refusal.

• Appeal No.: 2024-15931

The appeal challenged the examiner’s reliance on pronunciation alone.

4. Decision of the Appeal Board

The JPO Appeal Board reversed the refusal.

The Board found that:

• Although both marks share the same pronunciation (“flash”),
• they differ significantly in spelling and visual appearance (“Frush” vs. “FLASH”).

The Board further noted that:

• The applied mark “Frush” is a coined term with no specific meaning,
• while the cited mark “FLASH” has a clear meaning (“flash” or “light”).

Importantly, the Board emphasized that:

• the designated goods are highly technical products, and
• relevant consumers are expected to exercise a high level of attention when making purchasing decisions.

Taking these factors together, the Board concluded that:

• the differences in appearance and concept outweigh the similarity in pronunciation.

5. Outcome

The Board determined that the marks are not similar, and the refusal was set aside.
The trademark “Frush” was allowed to proceed toward registration.

Key Point for Foreign Applicants

This case highlights an important principle in Japanese trademark practice.

1. Pronunciation alone is not decisive

Even if two marks sound identical, they may still be considered dissimilar.

2. Visual and conceptual differences can outweigh phonetic similarity

Differences in spelling and meaning can significantly affect the overall impression.

3. Consumer attention level matters

In specialized or technical fields, higher consumer attention reduces the likelihood of confusion.

✅ Practical takeaway

In Japan, trademarks may be considered dissimilar despite identical pronunciation if:

• their visual appearance is clearly different,
• their meanings differ (or one has no meaning), and
• the relevant consumers are expected to exercise a high level of attention.

The cases presented here are based on publicly available JPO decisions and are provided for informational purposes only.