This case illustrates how the Japan Patent Office (JPO) evaluates similarity when two trademarks share identical pronunciation but differ in spelling.
It demonstrates that differences in initial letters and visual impression may outweigh phonetic similarity.
1. Application Details
- Mark: Klaus
- Application No.: Japanese Trademark Application No. 2021-138753
- Designated Goods: Leather goods, bags, apparel, and related products in Classes 18 and 25.
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: CLAUS
- Registration No.: 6450515
- Designated Goods: Bags, leather goods, travel goods, and related items in Class 18.
The examiner concluded that:
- both marks produce the same pronunciation (“Klaus”), and
- therefore the marks are similar.
3. Appeal to the JPO Trial and Appeal Board
An appeal was filed against the refusal.
- Appeal No.: 2022-12110
The appeal challenged the examiner’s reliance on phonetic similarity alone.
4. Decision of the Appeal Board
The JPO Appeal Board reversed the refusal.
The Board found that:
- The marks differ in their initial letters (“K” vs. “C”), which are visually noticeable and tend to leave a strong impression.
- Although the marks may share the same pronunciation (“Klaus”), they are visually distinguishable as different words.
The Board further noted that:
- neither mark has a specific meaning, so conceptual comparison is neutral.
Taking these factors together, the Board concluded that:
- the difference in appearance is sufficient to avoid confusion,
- even if phonetic similarity exists.
5. Outcome
The Board determined that the marks are not similar, and the refusal was set aside.
The trademark “Klaus” was allowed to proceed toward registration.
Key Point for Foreign Applicants
This case highlights an important principle in Japanese trademark practice.
1. Initial letters carry strong weight
Differences at the beginning of a word may significantly affect overall impression.
2. Phonetic similarity is not always decisive
Even identical pronunciation does not automatically result in similarity.
3. Visual distinction can outweigh sound similarity
Clear differences in spelling may prevent confusion.
✅ Practical takeaway
In Japan, trademarks may be considered dissimilar despite identical pronunciation if:
- their visual differences—especially at the beginning of the word—are clear, and
- the overall impression of the marks is distinguishable.