Founded in 1906 in Boston, USA, the opposer began as an orthopedic shoe manufacturer and now offers a broad selection of footwear and clothing for sports such as running, tennis, baseball, and soccer. They claimed that the “New Balance” logo ranks highly in Japanese surveys of sneaker and sports brand popularity. However, no evidence was provided to quantitatively evaluate the trademark’s renown, such as sales data, advertising, or publicity efforts. Consequently, it was not proven that the opposer’s trademark is widely recognized by consumers in Japan.

Besides the trademark in question and the opposer’s trademark being not similar in meaning, they were found to be clearly distinguishable in appearance or sound. Therefore, those two marks were judged to be dissimilar with no risk of being confused.

Furthermore, no concrete evidence suggested that the trademark in question was applied for registration with unfair purposes or a violation of public order or morality.

Therefore, the examining board found that there was no reason to cancel the trademark in question.

This case involves a parody trademark. While it may appear to mock the “New Balance” logo, the phrases and devices are distinctly different. Parodies, which are alterations of existing works for humor or satire, are usually distinguishable from the original by consumers, making it challenging to argue similarity or confusion. The present Trademark Law in Japan lacks specific clauses to prevent the dilution or tarnishing of well-known trademarks, thus, parody trademarks are not easily restricted unless they are deemed to violate public order and morality or are found to have unfair purposes.