This case illustrates how the Japan Patent Office (JPO) evaluates trademarks containing descriptive foreign words and fragrance names.
It demonstrates that even if individual elements have descriptive meanings, the mark may still be registrable if the overall expression is not commonly used to indicate the quality of the designated goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The application was refused based on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The examiner reasoned that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Accordingly, the examiner considered the mark to convey the meaning:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cperfume with a fresh mimosa fragrance.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Because mimosa-scented products are commercially available in the cosmetics industry, the examiner concluded that the mark merely describes the fragrance or quality of the designated goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n3. Appeal to the JPO Trial and Appeal Board<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
An appeal was filed against the refusal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- Appeal No.:<\/strong> 2025-6769<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
During the appeal proceedings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- the JPO issued an additional preliminary opinion (official inquiry), and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- the applicant submitted both arguments and an amendment narrowing the designated goods<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n4. Decision of the Appeal Board<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The JPO Appeal Board reversed the refusal<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Board acknowledged that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- \u201cPARFUM\u201d<\/strong> means perfume, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \u201cFRESH MIMOSA\u201d<\/strong> may evoke the idea of fresh mimosa<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
However, the Board emphasized that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- in relation to the amended designated goods, the expression would not immediately be understood as directly describing product quality<\/strong>, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- there was no evidence<\/strong> that \u201cFRESH MIMOSA\u201d<\/strong> or its Japanese equivalent is generally used in the relevant trade to indicate a specific product characteristic.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, the Board\u2019s own investigation found:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- no widespread industry use of the expression as a quality indication, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- no circumstances suggesting that consumers would perceive the wording merely as a description of the goods.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Accordingly, the Board concluded that the mark was neither descriptive nor misleading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n5. Outcome<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The refusal based on Articles 3(1)(iii) and 4(1)(xvi)<\/strong> was set aside<\/strong>, and the trademark was allowed to proceed toward registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nKey Point for Foreign Applicants<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
This case highlights an important principle in Japanese trademark practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. Descriptive meanings of individual words are not decisive<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even if each component of a trademark has a descriptive meaning, the overall mark may still function as a trademark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. Evidence of actual industry use is essential<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
The JPO requires objective evidence that the expression is commonly used to indicate the quality or characteristics of the goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. Amending the specification can strengthen an appeal<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Narrowing the designated goods may help demonstrate that the applied-for mark is not descriptive for the remaining goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\u2705 Practical takeaway<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Japan, a trademark containing descriptive foreign words may still be registrable where:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- the overall expression is not commonly used in the relevant industry<\/strong>,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- consumers would not immediately perceive it as indicating product quality<\/strong>, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- an appropriate amendment to the specification of goods<\/strong> removes concerns regarding descriptiveness or misleading indications.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This case illustrates how the Japan Patent Office (JPO) evaluates trademarks containing descriptive foreign wo … <\/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":["post-252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-successful-cases-in-japan","entry","nothumb"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252","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=252"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":254,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252\/revisions\/254"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}