{"id":55,"date":"2026-03-12T22:18:42","date_gmt":"2026-03-12T13:18:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/?p=55"},"modified":"2026-03-23T00:11:15","modified_gmt":"2026-03-22T15:11:15","slug":"jpo-appeal-case-study-aura-vs-aura-red","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/?p=55","title":{"rendered":"JPO Appeal Case Study: \u201cAURA\u201d vs. \u201cAURA RED\u201d\u2013 Similarity Refusal Overturned"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Understanding how the Japan Patent Office (JPO) evaluates similarity between trademarks is essential for foreign applicants.<br>The following appeal decision illustrates how a refusal based on similarity may be overturned when a cited composite mark is improperly dissected.<\/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> AURA<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Application No.:<\/strong> Japanese Trademark Application <strong>No. 2023-141345<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Designated Goods:<\/strong> Tobacco and related products in <strong>Class 34<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The application covered goods such as tobacco, heated tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, smoking articles, and related goods.<\/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-1\">2. Refusal by the JPO Examiner<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The application was refused under <strong>Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japanese Trademark Act<\/strong>, which prohibits registration of a trademark that is identical or similar to a prior registered trademark for identical or similar goods or services.<\/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> AURA RED<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Registration No.:<\/strong> <strong>6660870<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Designated Goods:<\/strong> Tobacco-related goods in Class 34<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the examiner:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the cited mark <strong>\u201cAURA RED\u201d<\/strong> could be divided into separate elements, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the element <strong>\u201cAURA\u201d<\/strong> should be extracted and compared with the applied mark.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Based on this reasoning, the examiner concluded that <strong>\u201cAURA\u201d and \u201cAURA RED\u201d were similar trademarks<\/strong>.<\/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-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>2025-1651<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The appeal argued that the cited trademark <strong>\u201cAURA RED\u201d<\/strong> should be evaluated as a whole and that isolating \u201cAURA\u201d from the composite mark was inappropriate.<\/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 held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The cited mark <strong>\u201cAURA RED\u201d<\/strong> should be perceived as <strong>a single, integrated trademark<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Although <strong>\u201cRED\u201d<\/strong> is a common English word meaning a color, there were <strong>no circumstances suggesting that consumers would ignore this element<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Accordingly, the Board rejected the examiner\u2019s approach of extracting <strong>\u201cAURA\u201d<\/strong> from the cited mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When evaluated as a whole, the Board concluded that <strong>\u201cAURA\u201d and \u201cAURA RED\u201d are not similar trademarks<\/strong>.<\/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-4\">5. Outcome<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The refusal was set aside, and the trademark <strong>\u201cAURA\u201d<\/strong> was allowed to proceed toward registration in Japan.<\/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 illustrates an important aspect of Japanese trademark practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>1. Whole-mark comparison is the basic principle<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In Japan, trademarks are generally compared <strong>as a whole<\/strong>, rather than dissecting individual elements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>2. Examiners sometimes extract a \u201cdominant element\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In practice, examiners may focus on one element of a composite mark (for example, the first word of a mark).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>3. Appeals can successfully challenge this approach<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If the cited mark functions as <strong>a unitary expression<\/strong>, the JPO Appeal Board may reject the examiner\u2019s attempt to isolate a particular element.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\">\n\n\n\n<p><strong>\u2705 <strong>Practical takeaway<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Even if two trademarks share the same word, they may still be considered <strong>dissimilar in Japan<\/strong> if the cited composite mark is perceived as a <strong>single integrated expression<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Strategic argumentation in appeal proceedings can therefore be critical when overcoming similarity refusals before the JPO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-sgb-sen\">\n\n\n\n<p>The cases presented here are based on publicly available JPO decisions and are provided for informational purposes only.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Understanding how the Japan Patent Office (JPO) evaluates similarity between trademarks is essential for forei &#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-55","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\/55","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=55"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":176,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55\/revisions\/176"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=55"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=55"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=55"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}