This case illustrates how the Japan Patent Office (JPO) evaluates similarity when a trademark includes an additional element appended to a common word.
It demonstrates that even when two marks share the same core term, differences in overall structure and pronunciation may be sufficient to avoid similarity.

1. Application Details

• Mark: MONO+ (word “MONO” with a small “+” symbol)
• Application No.: Japanese Trademark Application No. 2021-119641
• Designated Services: Retail and wholesale services in Class 35, including furniture, fittings, flowers, and household goods.

2. Refusal by the JPO Examiner

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

The examiner cited the following earlier trademark:

• Cited Mark: MONO
• Registration No.: 4533103
• Designated Goods: Various goods in Class 16 (e.g., household wrapping films, paper goods, and related items).

The examiner concluded that:

• the dominant element of the applied mark is “MONO”, and
• the additional “+” symbol does not sufficiently distinguish the marks.

3. Appeal to the JPO Trial and Appeal Board

An appeal was filed against the refusal.

• Appeal No.: 不服2023-6307

The appeal argued that the mark should be evaluated as a whole, including the “+” element.

4. Decision of the Appeal Board

The JPO Appeal Board reversed the refusal.

The Board found that:

• The mark “MONO+” is perceived as a single, unified expression, pronounced as “mono plus.”
• The “+” symbol contributes to the overall impression and is not negligible.

The Board further noted that:

• Although both marks share the element “MONO,”
• the applied mark includes the additional sound “plus,” resulting in a different overall pronunciation and rhythm.

In addition:

• Neither mark has a clearly defined concept, so conceptual comparison is neutral.

Based on these factors, the Board concluded that:

• the marks are distinguishable in both appearance and sound.

5. Outcome

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

Key Point for Foreign Applicants

This case highlights an important principle in Japanese trademark practice.

1. Additional elements can affect overall impression

Even small elements (such as “+”) may contribute to distinctiveness.

2. Whole-mark comparison is critical

The JPO Appeal Board evaluates trademarks as a unitary expression, rather than isolating a shared element.

3. Pronunciation differences matter

The addition of even a short element (e.g., “plus”) can create a sufficiently different overall sound.

✅ Practical takeaway

In Japan, trademarks may be considered dissimilar even if they share a common word, where:

• an additional element creates a different overall impression, and
• the marks differ in pronunciation and structure when viewed as a whole.