JPO decision highlights (Distinctiveness) [from July to December of 2024]
1. A case where distinctiveness of the term “LIGHTFORCE” was affirmed
| Appeal No. | Present Trademark | Class |
| 2024-650044 | LIGHTFORCE | 10 |
| Summary of Decision The JPO Board of Appeal overturned the refusal of registration. Although “LIGHT” and “FORCE” are familiar English words and the term “LIGHTFORCE” could suggest “light force,” especially in the orthodontic field where a treatment method uses gentle force, the Board found that the mark as a whole functions as a coined term. There was no evidence that consumers would perceive the mark as merely descriptive of the goods’ quality. The mark does not fall under Articles 3(1)(iii) or 4(1)(xvi) of the Trademark Act, and it is registrable. |
||
Comment
- The mark is recognized as a coined term and not a generic or descriptive term for the designated goods.
- Potential association with the “light force” orthodontic method does not affect distinctiveness.
- The refusal under the Trademark Act for descriptiveness or misrepresentation of quality was properly overturned.
2. A case where distinctiveness of the term “Market Function Technology” was affirmed
| Appeal No. | Present Trademark | Class |
| 2024-5686 | Market Function Technology | 9, 16, 35, 41, 42 |
| Summary of Decision The JPO Board of Appeal overturned the refusal of registration. Although the words “Market,” “Function,” and “Technology” have individual meanings in English, the combination of these words in a single, coherent expression forms a coined term. The mark as a whole does not merely indicate a business method, framework, or concept, nor does it allow consumers to recognize it as referring to goods or services of multiple entities. It functions as a distinctive mark capable of identifying the source of the designated goods and services, and does not fall under Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Act. |
||
Comment
- The mark is recognized as a coined term, not a descriptive phrase for business methods or frameworks.
- The combination of ordinary English words does not negate distinctiveness.
- The refusal under Article 3(1)(vi) for indicating multiple sources was properly overturned.
