This case demonstrates how the Japan Patent Office (JPO) assesses descriptiveness when a trademark consists of a combination of common words.
It shows that even clearly meaningful individual elements do not automatically render the combined mark descriptive.

1. Application Details

• Mark: MOISTUREGLOW
• International Registration No.: IR No. 1726302
• Designated Goods: Cosmetics and skincare products in Class 3 (e.g., makeup, cosmetic preparations for skin care).

2. Refusal by the JPO Examiner

The application was refused under Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japanese Trademark Act (descriptive mark).

The examiner reasoned that:

• “MOISTURE” means “water” or “hydration”, and
• “GLOW” means “shine” or “radiance.”

In the cosmetics field:

• “moisture” is commonly used for products that hydrate the skin, and
• “glow” is used for products that enhance skin radiance.

Based on this, the examiner concluded that:

“MOISTUREGLOW” means “providing moisture and radiance to the skin”

and therefore merely describes the quality or effect of the goods.

3. Appeal to the JPO Trial and Appeal Board

An appeal was filed against the refusal.

• Appeal No.: 2025-650003

The appeal challenged the examiner’s assumption that the combined expression had an established descriptive meaning.

4. Decision of the Appeal Board

The JPO Appeal Board reversed the refusal.

The Board acknowledged that:

• each element (“MOISTURE” and “GLOW”) has a clear meaning and is used in the cosmetics industry.

However, the Board emphasized that:

• there was no evidence that the combined term “MOISTUREGLOW” (or even “moisture glow”) is commonly used to describe products.
• consumers would not necessarily separate the mark into two elements and derive a specific descriptive meaning.

Instead, the Board found that:

• the mark is more likely to be perceived as a single coined expression (unitary term) rather than a direct description of product characteristics.

5. Outcome

The refusal based on descriptiveness was set aside, and the trademark “MOISTUREGLOW” was allowed to proceed toward registration.

Key Point for Foreign Applicants

This case highlights a key principle in Japanese trademark practice.

1. Meaning of individual words is not decisive

Even if each component word is descriptive, the combination may still be registrable.

2. Evidence of actual usage is essential

The JPO requires objective evidence that a combined expression is commonly used in the relevant industry.

3. Unitary coined expressions can be distinctive

If the mark is perceived as a single integrated term, it may function as a trademark even if composed of common words.

✅ Practical takeaway

In Japan, a trademark composed of descriptive elements may still be registrable if:

• the combined expression is not commonly used, and
• consumers are likely to perceive it as a coined, unified term rather than a direct description.

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