{"id":61,"date":"2026-03-13T22:17:26","date_gmt":"2026-03-13T13:17:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/?p=61"},"modified":"2026-03-23T00:10:40","modified_gmt":"2026-03-22T15:10:40","slug":"jpo-appeal-case-study-hyphen-vs-hyphen-tokyo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/?p=61","title":{"rendered":"JPO Appeal Case Study: \u201chyphen\u201d vs. \u201cHYPHEN TOKYO\u201d\u2013 Similarity Refusal Overturned"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Understanding how the Japan Patent Office (JPO) evaluates composite trademarks is important for foreign applicants.<br>This appeal decision demonstrates that a refusal may be overturned when the examiner improperly extracts one element from a composite mark.<\/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> hyphen<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Application No.:<\/strong> Japanese Trademark Application <strong>No. 2024-85542<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Designated Goods:<\/strong> Cosmetics and related products in <strong>Class 3<\/strong>, including cosmetics, soaps, perfumes, artificial eyelashes, artificial nails, wigs adhesives, and cosmetic adhesives.<\/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) of the Japanese Trademark Act<\/strong>, which prohibits registration of a trademark that is identical or similar to 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> HYPHEN TOKYO<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Registration No.:<\/strong> <strong>6805260<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Designated Services:<\/strong> Retail and wholesale services relating to goods such as cosmetics and fragrance products in <strong>Class 35<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The examiner reasoned that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the cited mark <strong>\u201cHYPHEN TOKYO\u201d<\/strong> contains the element <strong>\u201cHYPHEN\u201d<\/strong>, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>this element could be extracted as the dominant portion of the mark.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Based on this reasoning, the examiner concluded that <strong>\u201chyphen\u201d and \u201cHYPHEN TOKYO\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>2025-15519<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The appeal argued that the cited trademark should be evaluated as a <strong>whole<\/strong> and that isolating the word <strong>\u201cHYPHEN\u201d<\/strong> 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>\u201cHYPHEN TOKYO\u201d<\/strong> appears visually <strong>integrated as a single expression<\/strong>, since all letters are written in the same style and size and the spacing between the words is minimal.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The pronunciation <strong>\u201cHYPHEN TOKYO\u201d<\/strong> consists of eight syllables and can be pronounced smoothly as a single phrase.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Although <strong>\u201cTOKYO\u201d<\/strong> may be recognized as a geographical term referring to Japan\u2019s capital, the Board found <strong>no circumstances indicating that the element \u201cHYPHEN\u201d alone would dominate the overall impression of the mark<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Therefore, consumers are likely to perceive the cited mark as <strong>a unified mark rather than focusing solely on the word \u201cHYPHEN.\u201d<\/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>Because the cited mark must be evaluated <strong>as a whole<\/strong>, the Board concluded that <strong>\u201chyphen\u201d and \u201cHYPHEN TOKYO\u201d are not similar trademarks<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The refusal was set aside, and the trademark <strong>\u201chyphen\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 decision illustrates an important principle in Japanese trademark practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>1. Whole-mark comparison remains the basic rule<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Japanese trademark examination generally evaluates marks <strong>as a whole<\/strong>, rather than isolating individual elements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>2. Geographic terms do not automatically weaken the rest of the mark<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Even when a composite mark contains a geographic term such as <strong>\u201cTOKYO,\u201d<\/strong> the remaining element is not automatically treated as the dominant part.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>3. Appeals can successfully challenge element-extraction reasoning<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If the cited mark functions as <strong>a unified expression<\/strong>, the JPO Appeal Board may reject the examiner\u2019s attempt to isolate a single element.<\/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>Even if a cited mark contains a geographic term (e.g., \u201cTOKYO\u201d), the JPO may still treat the mark <strong>as a single integrated expression<\/strong>, preventing similarity from being established based on only one shared word.<\/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 composite trademarks is important for foreign applic &#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-61","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\/61","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=61"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":175,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61\/revisions\/175"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=61"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=61"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrid-system.jp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=61"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}