{"id":333,"date":"2019-09-25T13:57:24","date_gmt":"2019-09-25T04:57:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/?p=333"},"modified":"2021-09-08T14:13:41","modified_gmt":"2021-09-08T05:13:41","slug":"vol-23-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/article\/case\/333\/","title":{"rendered":"Vol.19 (TIMES)"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3 class=\"line_ttl_02\">AppealNo. 2018-5578<\/h3>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/20191006010445.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"586\" height=\"249\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-335\" srcset=\"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/20191006010445.jpg 586w, https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/20191006010445-300x127.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 586px) 100vw, 586px\" \/><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>\n<h3 class=\"line_ttl_02\">Conclusion<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The goods and services were judged to be dissimilar while the marks were judged to be similar.\u00a0 Thus, the subject mark was allowed for registration.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li>\n<h3 class=\"line_ttl_02\">Summary<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The subject software was considered dissimilar to the software of the cited mark because there are differences in use, consumers, etc.\u00a0 Specifically, the differences in the use and consumers were indicated as follows. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\u3000\u3000\u3000\u3000\u3000\u3000\u3000\u3000\u3000\u3000<\/p>\n<table class=\"table_basic\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>\u3000<\/th>\n<td>Software of subject mark<\/td>\n<td>Software of cited mark<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>use<\/th>\n<td>For design and drawing<\/td>\n<td>Map information for car navigation device<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>consumers<\/th>\n<td>Companies specializing in producing advertisement and printing<\/td>\n<td>Car manufacturers, transportation companies, and general consumers in connection with the cars incorporating car navigation device<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li>\n<h3 class=\"line_ttl_02\">My comments<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>As I hoped in<span>\u00a0<\/span>the article of Vol.6 (OASIS), I had been waiting for such a case for a long time.\u00a0 I had wondered why any type of software is regarded as being similar to each other in examinations.\u00a0 I had believed that the software differing in their consumers should be dissimilar.\u00a0 So, I am very excited to see this case.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Actually, if an Office Action is issued due to a prior mark, my client asks me whether it is effective to assert dissimilarity based on the difference in<span>\u00a0<\/span>the field<span>\u00a0<\/span>of the software.\u00a0 In that case, although I inform them that such an assertion can be made, I could not recommend doing so without advantageous precedents.\u00a0 From now on, I can propose making such arguments indicating this decision.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>However, it is not easy to make it in real life. Since there is a<span>\u00a0<\/span>possibility<span>\u00a0<\/span>of having to go to an<span>\u00a0<\/span>Appeal, it may take time and cost you a lot.\u00a0 In addition, the designated goods are hardly limited to \u201csoftware for XXX\u201d, but \u201celectronic machines and apparatus\u201d or \u201ccomputer software\u201d is often designated, and thus applicants cannot argue the similarity of the goods in many cases.\u00a0 Under Japanese practice, it is basically not allowed to make assertions related to use in examinations.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>If a prior mark designating \u201celectronic machines and apparatus\u201d is used only for the software in<span>\u00a0<\/span>the field<span>\u00a0<\/span>of X, the applicant of the later-filed application designating software in<span>\u00a0<\/span>the field<span>\u00a0<\/span>of Y has to file a non-use cancellation trial against the registration for the goods other than X.\u00a0 After this registration is cancelled in that trial, the applicant of the later-filed application can start to argue the dissimilarity of the goods.\u00a0 How troublesome they are.\u00a0 The practice should be changed. \u00a0<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>AppealNo. 2018-5578 Conclusion The goods and services were judged to be dissimilar while the marks were judged &#8230; <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1026,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=333"}],"version-history":[{"count":22,"href":"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":982,"href":"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333\/revisions\/982"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1026"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bran-design.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}