{"id":205,"date":"2026-03-30T07:26:07","date_gmt":"2026-03-29T22:26:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/?p=205"},"modified":"2026-03-30T07:26:09","modified_gmt":"2026-03-29T22:26:09","slug":"jpo-appeal-case-study-mono-vs-mono-similarity-refusal-overturned","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/?p=205","title":{"rendered":"JPO Appeal Case Study: \u201cMONO+\u201d vs. \u201cMONO\u201d \u2013 Similarity Refusal Overturned"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>This case illustrates how the Japan Patent Office (JPO) evaluates similarity when a trademark includes an additional element appended to a common word.<br>It demonstrates that even when two marks share the same core term, differences in overall structure and pronunciation may be sufficient to avoid similarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\">\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"i-0\">1. Application Details<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Mark:<\/strong> MONO+ (word \u201cMONO\u201d with a small \u201c+\u201d symbol)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Application No.:<\/strong> Japanese Trademark Application <strong>No. 2021-119641<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Designated Services:<\/strong> Retail and wholesale services in <strong>Class 35<\/strong>, including furniture, fittings, flowers, and household goods.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\">\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"i-1\">2. Refusal by the JPO Examiner<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The application was refused under <strong>Article 4(1)(xi)<\/strong> of the Japanese Trademark Act (likelihood of confusion with a prior registered trademark).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The examiner cited the following earlier trademark:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Cited Mark:<\/strong> MONO<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Registration No.:<\/strong> <strong>4533103<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Designated Goods:<\/strong> Various goods in <strong>Class 16<\/strong> (e.g., household wrapping films, paper goods, and related items).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The examiner concluded that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the dominant element of the applied mark is <strong>\u201cMONO\u201d<\/strong>, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the additional \u201c+\u201d symbol does not sufficiently distinguish the marks.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\">\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"i-2\">3. Appeal to the JPO Trial and Appeal Board<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>An appeal was filed against the refusal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Appeal No.:<\/strong> <strong>\u4e0d\u670d2023-6307<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The appeal argued that the mark should be evaluated as a <strong>whole<\/strong>, including the \u201c+\u201d element.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\">\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"i-3\">4. Decision of the Appeal Board<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The JPO Appeal Board <strong>reversed the refusal<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Board found that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The mark <strong>\u201cMONO+\u201d<\/strong> is perceived as a <strong>single, unified expression<\/strong>, pronounced as \u201cmono plus.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The \u201c+\u201d symbol contributes to the overall impression and is not negligible.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The Board further noted that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Although both marks share the element <strong>\u201cMONO,\u201d<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the applied mark includes the additional sound <strong>\u201cplus,\u201d<\/strong> resulting in a <strong>different overall pronunciation and rhythm<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In addition:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Neither mark has a clearly defined concept, so conceptual comparison is neutral.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Based on these factors, the Board concluded that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the marks are distinguishable in both <strong>appearance and sound<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\">\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"i-4\">5. Outcome<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Board determined that the marks are <strong>not similar<\/strong>, and the refusal was set aside.<br>The trademark <strong>\u201cMONO+\u201d<\/strong> was allowed to proceed toward registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\">\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"i-5\">Key Point for Foreign Applicants<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>This case highlights an important principle in Japanese trademark practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>1. Additional elements can affect overall impression<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Even small elements (such as \u201c+\u201d) may contribute to distinctiveness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>2. Whole-mark comparison is critical<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The JPO Appeal Board evaluates trademarks as a <strong>unitary expression<\/strong>, rather than isolating a shared element.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>3. Pronunciation differences matter<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The addition of even a short element (e.g., \u201cplus\u201d) can create a sufficiently different overall sound.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\">\n\n\n\n<p>\u2705 <strong>Practical takeaway<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In Japan, trademarks may be considered <strong>dissimilar<\/strong> even if they share a common word, where:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>an additional element creates a <strong>different overall impression<\/strong>, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the marks differ in <strong>pronunciation and structure when viewed as a whole<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This case illustrates how the Japan Patent Office (JPO) evaluates similarity when a trademark includes an addi &#8230; <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-205","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-successful-cases-in-japan","7":"entry","8":"nothumb"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=205"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":206,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205\/revisions\/206"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}