Applied-for-trademark: VENN (Standard characters)

Cited trademark: B E N (Standard characters)

Designated goods and services of applied-for-trademark: Installation, maintenance, and repair of plumbing in class 37, and others.

Designated goods and services of cited trademark: Building wrecking services; building extension construction; and building demolition in class 37

(1) Applied-for-trademark and Cited trademark:

1. Applied-for-trademark:

   The applied-for-trademark consists of letter string “VENN” in standard characters.  “VENN” is not listed as a preexisting word in dictionaries and others.  Further, we are unable to find circumstances that “VENN” has been recognized as a word having a specific meaning.  Thus, “VENN” is considered a coined word.  With the above in mind, “VENN” has a pronunciation of “VENN” corresponding to the letter string and has no specific meaning.

2. Cited trademark:

   The cited trademark consists of letter strings “B E N” in standard characters.  “B E N” is listed as a word having meanings of “inner room; a mountain peak; a hill; and a nickname of Benjamin” in dictionaries.  However, it is difficult to say that these meanings of “B E N” are common in Japan.  Thus, “B E N” is considered a coined word.  With the above in mind, “B E N” has a pronunciation of “B E N” corresponding to the letter strings and has no specific meaning.

3. Similarity of Applied-for-trademark and Cited trademark:

   As for appearance, both trademarks consist of only three to four letters.  “VENN” has no spacing and “B E N” has spacing.  Further, the beginning letter of the applied-for-trademark “V” and that of the cited trademark “B” are different, and the third and fourth letters of the applied-for-trademark “NN” and the third letter of the cited trademark “N” are different.  Thus, both trademarks are clearly distinguishable in appearance because the trademarks give different impressions.

   As for sound, the trademarks have sounds in common (when pronounced using Japanese phonetics).

   As for meaning, it is not possible to compare the trademarks because they do not have any specific meaning.

   With the impressions, memories, associations and the like by appearance, sound, and meaning of the trademarks given to traders and consumers in mind as a whole, it is reasonable to say that the trademarks are dissimilar because it is not possible to compare the trademarks in meaning and because both trademarks are clearly distinguishable in appearance, even if the trademarks have a common sound.

4. Summary:

   The applied-for-trademark and the cited trademark are dissimilar as the above.  Thus, it is not necessary to judge the similarity of the designated goods and services of the two trademarks.

(2) Conclusion:

The applied-for-trademark should be registered because it is dissimilar to the cited trademark.

An earlier registered trademark “VEN” was also cited.  However, the applicant deleted conflicting goods to overcome the citation of “VEN”.