Trademark Date
Right
Case number

December 4, 2023
2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10067

Court

Intellectual Property
High Court, First
Division- A case in which the court determined that the Trademark (a trademark consisting of
the letters, etc. "5252byＯ !Ｏ i" written in Gothic script), which is a registeredtrademark held by the Defendant, and the Cited Trademarks (trademarks such as one
consisting of the letters "OIOI" written in round Gothic script) are similar, andrescinded the JPO Decision which dismissed a request for a trial for invalidation byholding that the Trademark does not fall under the cases stipulated in Article 4,paragraph (1), items (xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Act.
Case type: Rescission of Trial Decision to Maintain
Result: Granted
References: Article 4, paragraph (1), item (xi) of the Trademark Act
Related rights, etc.: Trademark Registration No. 6371693
Decision of JPO: Invalidation Trial No. 2021-890031
Summary of the Judgment
1.

The Defendant holds the trademark right holder to the Trademark, which

consists of the letters and the like "5252by Ｏ ! Ｏ i" written in Gothic script(Designated goods: "Cell phone straps", etc. in Class 9; "Bags, etc." in Class 18;"Clothes", etc. in Class 25).

The Plaintiff requested for a trial for invalidation of

trademark registration for the Trademark, but the JPO rendered a decision which
dismissed the request for a trial, by holding that the Trademark does not fall undereither of the cases stipulated in Article 4, paragraph (1), items (xi) and (xv) of theTrademark Act.
2.

In the judgment of the present case (Judgment), the court determined that theTrademark is similar to Cited Trademark 3 (a trademark consisting of the letters"OIOI" written in red, in round Gothic script) and that there is also similarity indesignated goods and services and thus the Trademark falls under the case stipulated
in Article 4, paragraph (1), item (xi) of the Trademark Act, thereby rescinding the
JPO Decision.

The outline of the reasons based on which the Judgment determinedthat the Trademark and the Cited Trademark 3 are similar is as follows.
(1)

The Trademark consists of numbers, alphabetic letters, and an exclamation

mark written in black, in Gothic script, in the same size, in a horizontal line withequal spaces in-between.

Given that in Japan, people are familiar with the English

word "by", which is widely used and is generally employed in the usage of "by XYZ",
as an English preposition that indicates that "the source of goods and service is XYZ",
and also given that "by" is written in small letters, it can be said that the Trademark ,i

as a whole has a structure that captures the attention of onlookers in a way thatsuggests that the part "Ｏ!Ｏi" after "by" is an independent part.

The part "5252" isonly a listing of numbers and is not particularly distinctive, but the part "Ｏ!Ｏi" gives
a visually prominent impression, and is unique in that it can be understood either as acoined word or a figure.

In that case, it can be said that the part "Ｏ!Ｏi" gives astrong and dominant impression as an indicator of source, and has a function as anindicator of source for the entire trademark, so that it is permissible to extract this partas an important part of the Trademark (Important Part) for comparison with anotherperson's trademark to determine the similarity of the trademarks.
(2)

It is difficult to say that the concept generated from the Important Part and theconcept generated from the Cited Trademark 3 are the same.

Strictly speaking, theappellations generated from the two trademarks are different, but they share many of
the same sounds, so that the sounds are reasonably similar.

As for the appearancesof the two trademarks, they are similar in shape in that each consists of a single
vertical line, or a single vertical line and a dot placed on a continual line, and theplacement of the letters, including the spaces in-between, are also very similar, so thatwhile differences can be found under close observation, the two trademarks are
confusingly similar under isolated observation of each trademark at a different timeand in a different place, respectively.
In addition to the above, upon holistically considering the designated goods of theTrademark and other factors as well as the actual circumstances of transaction, it isacknowledged that the Trademark is similar to Cited Trademark 3.

ii

Judgment rendered on December 4, 2023
2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10067 Case of seeking rescission of trial decision
Date of conclusion of oral argument: October 4, 2023
Judgment
Plaintiff:

Marui Group Co., Ltd.

Defendant:

Y

Main text
1. The judgment rendered by the JPO on May 18, 2023 for Invalidation Trial
No. 2021-890031 shall be rescinded.
2. Court costs shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. An additional period of 30 days shall be set for filing final appeal and forfiling a petition for acceptance of final appeal against this judgment.
Facts and reasonsNo. 1 ClaimsSame as per the main text
No. 2 Outline of the case
The present case is a lawsuit seeking rescission of a judgment which dismisseda request for a trial for invalidation of trademark registration.

The issue concerns theapplicability of Article 4, paragraph (1), item (xi) and item (xv) of the Trademark Act.
1.

Background of JPO procedures, etc.

(1)

The Defendant is the trademark right holder of the following trademark, which

is identified as Trademark Registration No. 6371693 (hereinafter referred to as"Trademark") (Exhibits Ko 1 and 2).
Registered trademark:

Date of application for registration: March 11, 2020
Date of decision for registration: March 8, 2021
Date of registration: April 1, 2021
Classification of goods and services, and designated goods:
Class 9 "Cell phone straps; Cell phone cases; Protective films adapted for1smartphones; Selfie sticks for smartphones; USB cables; Sound mixers withintegrated amplifiers; Power amplifiers; Headphones; Wireless speakers; Speakers;
Mobile communication terminal devices; Cellular phones; Sunglasses; Glasses;
Batteries"
Class 18 "Bags; Accessories for bags; Bags of leather; Business card cases ofleather; Bags of imitation leather; Traveling bags of leather; Multi-tool bags; Bags for
climbers; Belt bags; Hip bags; Shopping bags; Garment bags for travel; Purses;
School bags; Vanity cases; Umbrellas; Pouches; Leather shoulder belts; Pouch baby
carriers"
Class 25 "Clothing; Coats; Jumpers; One-piece suits; Clothing of blue jeansfabric; Breeches for wear; Outer clothing; Underclothing; Shirts; Coats for sports;
Liveries; Layettes [clothing]; Children's clothing; Footwear; Hats; Leather belts;
Clothing of leather; Gloves [of leather, animal skin, or fur, etc.]; Short-sleeve shirts;
Aloha shirts; Socks; Stockings"(2)

On July 14, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial for invalidation of

trademark registration for the Trademark.

The JPO examined the request as

Invalidation Case No. 2021-890031, and on May 18, 2023, rendered a judgment to theeffect that "the request for a trial of the present case is dismissed" (hereinafterreferred to as "JPO Decision"), and a certified copy thereof was delivered to thePlaintiff on the 26th of the same month.
(3)

On June 26, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of the present case seeking

rescission of the JPO Decision.
2.

Summary of reasons for JPO Decision
In the JPO Decision, the JPO ruled that it cannot be said that the trademark

registration of the Trademark was in violation of either item (xi) or item (xv) of
paragraph (1) of Article 4 of the Trademark Act, so that the Trademark cannot be
invalidated pursuant to the provisions of Article 46, paragraph (1) of the same Act.
The summary of the reasons is as follows.
(1)

Applicability of Article 4, paragraph (1), item (xi) of the Trademark Act

A.

The Trademark consists of the numbers "5252", and the alphabetic letters andan exclamation mark "byO!Oi" written in the same script, in the same size, in ahorizontal line with equal spaces in-between, and the Trademark is recognized as a
type of coined word that has no specific meaning.

As such, the Trademark generates

the appellation of "go-ni-go-ni-by-oh-oi" in correspondence with the constituent
letters, and no specific concept is generated.
B.

The mark indicated in the Attachment 1 titled "List of Mark" consists of a2

figure that shows two circles and two vertical bars placed alternately (hereinafterreferred to as "Plaintiff's Mark").

At the time when an application for registration

was filed for the Trademark, and as of the time of the decision for registration,
Plaintiff's Mark was widely recognized among traders and consumers in Japan as atrademark that indicates the goods or services (hereinafter sometimes referred to as"Goods, etc.") pertaining to the businesses of the Plaintiff and its group company, aretailer called "Marui Co., Ltd." (hereinafter the company and the Plaintiff arecollectively referred to as "Plaintiff, etc.").
The cited trademarks indicated in the Attachment 2 (hereinafter simply referred
to as "Cited Trademarks" together) are trademarks which closely resemble, or which
are regarded as identical with, the Plaintiff's Mark, which is widely known among
traders and consumers as a mark that indicates Goods, etc. pertaining to the businessof Plaintiff, etc., or are trademarks whose important part consists of Plaintiff's Mark.
In correspondence with the composition, the Cited Trademarks generate theappellation of "marui", and generate the concept of "a mark for Marui", as referring toa brand of Plaintiff, etc.
C.

When the Trademark and the Cited Trademarks are compared, the appearance

is such that the Trademark, which consists of numbers, an exclamation mark, andalphabetic letters, and the Cited Trademarks, which consist of a figure that alternately
shows two circles and two vertical bars, or whose important part is such figure, areclearly different in the entire composition, so that it is easy to make distinction.

Theappellation "go-ni-go-ni-by-oh-oi", which is generated from the Trademark, and theappellation "marui", which is generated from the Cited Trademarks, are clearly
different in terms of constituent sounds and the number of constituent sounds, so that
there is no risk of mistaking the Cited Trademarks with the Trademark by sound, orvice versa.

As for concept, the Trademark does not generate any specific concept,

whereas the Cited Trademarks generate the concept of "a mark for Marui", asreferring to a brand of Plaintiff, etc., so that there is no risk of causing confusion.
In that case, the Trademark and the Cited Trademarks have no risk of causing
confusion in appearance, appellation, or concept, so that, upon comprehensively
taking into consideration the impression, recollection, association, and the like which
traders and consumers receive from the appearance, appellation, or concept, thetrademarks are not similar and have no risk of causing confusion as to the source ofthe designated goods of the Trademark, and of the designated goods and designat edservices of the Cited Trademarks (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "DesignatedGoods, etc.").
3

D.

The part "O!Oi" of the Trademark is easily recognized as consisting of thealphabetic letter "O", the symbol (exclamation mark) "!", the alphabetic lett er "O",and the alphabetic letter "i", and it can be said that the Trademark is clearly different
from Plaintiff's Mark in composition, and it is natural to consider that the Trademark,as a whole, is grasped and recognized as an inseparable trademark that is acombination of numbers and alphabetic letters that include an exclamation mark,which are indicated in a line without any space in-between.

As such, the "O!Oi" partof the Trademark cannot be extracted to say that there is similarity with the Plaint iff's
Mark.
(2)

Applicability of Article 4, paragraph (1), item (xv) of the Trademark Act
It is acknowledged that, at the time when an application for registration was

filed for the Trademark, and as of the time of the decision for registration, thePlaintiff's Mark was widely recognized among traders and consumers in Japan as atrademark that indicates the Goods, etc. pertaining to the businesses of the Plaintiff,
etc.

Furthermore, the Trademark is highly unique, and the designated goods of theTrademark include goods that are similar to the services in which Plaintiff's Mark isused.

However, the Trademark and the Plaintiff's Mark can be clearly distinguishedin appearance, appellation, and concept, so that upon holistically considering theoverall impression, recollection, association, and the like which traders andconsumers receive from the appearance, appellation, and concept of the Trademark
and the Plaintiff's Mark, the trademarks are not similar and have no risk of causing
confusion, and are therefore different trademarks, so that the degree of similarity islow.
In that case, even when the Trademark is used for its designated goods, it does
not cause traders and consumers to recollect Plaintiff's Mark or be reminded ofPlaintiff's Mark, and there is no risk of causing confusion as to the source of thegoods as if the goods pertain to the business of the Plaintiff or a person who issomehow economically or organizationally related to the Plaintiff.
(omitted)
No. 5 Judgment of this court
1.

According to evidence (Exhibits Ko 4 to 11, and 27; Exhibit Otsu 2) and theentire import of oral argument, the following is acknowledged.
In 1937, the Plaintiff (the trade name prior to change in 2007 was "Marui Co.,Ltd."; in the same year, the company switched to holding company system, and4changed its name to Marui Group Co., Ltd., and transferred the retail business to
newly established "Marui Co., Ltd.") was founded as a stock corporation that engages
in businesses such as installment selling of furniture at a shop located in Nakano-ku,
Tokyo.

After it resumed operation after the war, the Plaintiff expanded its networkof shops by focusing on the method of opening up shops by taking the form of fashionbuildings located around terminal stations in Tokyo and its neighboring prefectures.
Since around the 1970s, the goods the company handled shifted to clothing and otheritems of apparel and fashion, and the company created a logomark that has thecomposition of Cited Trademarks 1, 2, and 8 and consists of the letters "OIOI" written
in round Gothic script (however, the lower right corner of each "O" being slightly
broken), and posted the logomark on the tower house of a fashion building or at theentrance of a shop, etc. in a conspicuous manner, and informed people, through TV
commercials and the like, of the logomark by calling it "marui marui" or "marui", etc.,
in addition to promoting an integrated image for the company by using the same
numbers "0101" for the last four digits of the shops' phone numbers.

Around 1995,

the Plaintiff renovated the logomark to Cited Trademarks 3 and 10 as well as one thatconsists of Plaintiff's Mark (the "O" whose shape is not broken in the lower rightcorner), and later, expanded the network of shops to the Tohoku region, the Tokai
region, the Kinki region, and the Kyushu region rather than covering only the
metropolitan area, while maintaining the basic direction of opening shops aroundterminal stations, including operation as tenants.
The Plaintiff has sequentially reviewed the business style that focuses on retailbusiness, whose market has deteriorated since before and after the Lehman Shock in
2005, and the Plaintiff has maintained operation of 20 or more shops mostly in themetropolitan area as of 2020, and has also diversified its operation of the entire groupwith the Plaintiff as the holding company, by engaging in financial business,investment business (FinTech business), information system business, total fashion
logistics business, etc., deriving from the conventional installment seller business.
The sales made by Marui Co., Ltd., a group company of the Plaintiff operating as aretailer, for the fiscal year of 2021 ending in March, amounted to 72,067,000,000 yen.
The company also operates EC sites such as Marui Web Channel and Marui Rakuten
Market Online Store, which account for approximately 10% of the sales of the entire
group (other than food and restaurants).
By 2010, if not earlier, the Plaintiff's Mark, which consists of the letters"OIOI" written in black, in round Gothic script, had come to be acknowledged as a
famous trademark through being used on goods such as clothing and bags, and in5

services such as retail of clothing, even in JPO's examination practices.
2.

Reason 1 for rescission (Whether or not the decision as to the applicability of

Article 4, paragraph (1), item (xi) of the Trademark Act is incorrect)(1) Decision on the applicability of Article 4, paragraph (1), item (xi) of theTrademark Act
Similarity between trademarks should be determined based on whether or not
the two trademarks, which are to be compared, have a risk of causing
misunderstanding or confusion as to the source of the goods or services when they areused on the same or similar goods or services.

Such determination shoul d be madeby holistically considering factors such as the impression, recollection, andassociation which traders and consumers receive from the appearance, concept, andappellation, etc. of the trademark, which is used for the relevant goods or services,
thereby considering the similarity from an overall perspective in light of the actual
circumstances of transaction pertaining to the relevant goods or services.
Furthermore, as long as the actual circumstances of transaction of the goods orservices can be clarified, it is reasonable to make the determination based on thespecific circumstances of transaction (Refer to Supreme Court Judgment 1964 (Gyo Tsu) 110; Judgment rendered on February 27, 1968 by the Third Petty Bench; Minshu
Vol. 22, No. 2, page 399).
In addition, a composite trademark made up of multiple constituent parts iscreated as something that is distinguished from another person's trademark because of
the entirety of the constituent parts, so that in principle, it is not permissible to extr act
a part of the constituent parts for comparison with another person's trademark to
determine the similarity of the trademarks themselves.

However, in a case where itis acknowledged that a part of the constituent parts of a trademark gives a strong anddominant impression to traders and consumers as an indicator of source for goods orservices, or in a case where it is acknowledged that no other part generates any
appellation or concept as an indicator of source, and in other cases where it cannot be
acknowledged that the constituent parts of a trademark are inseparably joined together
so much so that it is unnatural in transaction to separately observe such constituent
parts, it should be permissible to extract a part of the constituent parts for compar isonwith another person's trademark to determine similarity between trademarks (Refer toSupreme Court Judgment 1962 (O) 953; Judgment rendered on December 5, 1963 by
the First Petty Bench; Minshu Vol. 17, No. 12, page 1621; Supreme Court Judgment
1991 (Gyo-Tsu) 103; Judgment rendered by the Second Petty Bench on September 10,
1993; Minshu Vol. 47, No. 7, page 5009; the above-mentioned Supreme Court
6

Judgment rendered on September 8, 2008 by the Second Petty Bench).
(2)

The TrademarkA.

As described above under No. 2, 1 (1), the Trademark consists of numbers,

alphabet letters, and an exclamation mark, written in black, in Gothic script, in thesame size, in a horizontal line with equal spaces in-between as "5252byO!Oi".

Of

course, given that in Japan, people are familiar with the English word "by", which is
widely used and is generally employed in the usage of "by XYZ", as an English
preposition that indicates that "the source of goods and service is XYZ", and also
given that "by" is written in small letters, it can be said that the Trademark, as a whole,
has a structure that captures the attention of onlookers in a way that suggests that thepart "O!Oi" after "by" is an independent part.

The part "5252" of the Trademark is

only a listing of numbers and is not particularly distinctive.

However, the part

"O!Oi", which uses alphabetic letters but is not a word that is listed in a dictionary,etc., can generate the appellation of "oh-oi" or "oh-oh-ai", but uses an exclamation
mark so that the sound is not uniformly defined, and the alternate use of circles andvertical lines gives a visually prominent impression, so that it can be said that the partis unique in that it can be understood either as a coined word or a figure.

In addition,

as described above, given that the usage of "by XYZ" is widely employed and thatpeople are familiar with such use as an indicator that "the source of goods and service
is XYZ", it should be said that the part "O!Oi" placed after "by" gives a strong anddominant impression as an indicator of source even from among the composition of
the Trademark.

In that case, while the part "O!Oi" is a part of the Trademark, it isacknowledged as having a function as an indicator of source for the entire trademark,so that it should be said that it is permissible to extract this part as an important partof the Trademark (hereinafter referred to as "Important Part") for comparison withanother person's trademark to determine similarity between the trademarks.
The Defendant cites the above-mentioned Supreme Court Judgment renderedon September 8, 2008 by the Second Petty Bench to argue that it is not permissible touse only the Important Part, which is a part of the constituent parts of the Trademarkthat are written in the same font, in the same size, in a horizontal line with equal
spaces in-between, for comparison with another person's trademark.

However, as

described above, the Important Part is widely used in Japan as an English prepositionindicating that the words to follow refer to the source of the Goods, etc., and since theImportant Part is placed after the word "by", which people are familiar with, it can besaid that the Important Part is structured in such way that it independently attracts theattention of onlookers as an indicator of source for Goods, etc., and furthermore, it
7has a unique shape that can be understood as a coined word or a figure, and it isacknowledged that it gives a strong and dominant impression as an indicator of source.
On the other hand, the parts "5252" and "by", which are the remaining parts of theTrademark, have no distinctiveness, so that it can be said that it should be permissible
to compare the Important Part alone with another person's trademark.

The

Defendant's argument cannot be accepted.
B.

The Important Part consists of the alphabet letters and an exclamation mark

"O!Oi" written in black, in Gothic script, in the same size, in a horizontal line withequal spaces in-between.

The Important Part can generate the appellations "oh-oi"

and "oh-oh-ai" in correspondence with the constituent letters.

On the other hand, theplacement of these alphabetic letters does not consist of words, etc. recorded in adictionary, etc., and given that no special meaning can be found even from theappellations that can generate as described above, it can be said that the Important
Part does not generate any special concept.
C.

The designated goods of the Trademark are as indicated above under No. 2, 1(1), and most are clothing and bags and other items of fashion and apparel,
accessories for mobile phones, headphones, glasses, and other items worn by general
consumers.
(3)

Cited Trademark 3

A.

From among the Cited Trademarks, the composition of the Cited Trademark 3

is as indicated under "Trademark composition" under 3 of Attachment 2, and consistsof the letters "OIOI" written in red, in round Gothic script, in the same size, withequal spaces in-between.

The Cited Trademark 3 generates the appellations of "oh -ai-oh-ai" and "oi-oi" in correspondence with the constituent letters, and according to
the fact situation identified above in 1, it is acknowledged that, at the time when an
application for registration was filed for the Trademark and as of the time of thedecision for registration, Plaintiff's Mark was a famous trademark among traders andconsumers of fashion and apparel, including general consumers, so that it isacknowledged that Cited Trademark 3, which has the same composition as Plaintiff's
Mark except in color, generates the appellation of "marui" as well as the concept of a"logomark for Marui".
B.

Designated goods of Cited Trademark 3 include clothing and bags, and otheritems of fashion and apparel as well as keyholders, glasses, and other items worn bygeneral consumers.
(4)

Similarity between the Trademark and Cited Trademark 3
While the Important Part does not generate any special concept, Cited8

Trademark 3 generates the concept of a "logomark for Marui", so that it is difficult to
say that the two trademarks are identical.
Next, while the Important Part generates the appellations of "oh-oi" and "ohoh-ai", Cited Trademark 3 generates the appellations of "oh-ai-oh-ai", "oi-oi", and"marui".

As such, it should be said that the two trademarks share many sounds incommon although the inclusion of "!" in the Important Part causes difference inappellation in a strict sense, and it should be said that the two trademarks arereasonably similar.
As for the appearance of the two trademarks, the Important Part and Cited
Trademark 3 consist of four letters or a symbol written in Gothic script, and the first
and third letters are both "O".

Different letters or symbols are used for the secondand fourth places, namely "!" and "I" for the second place and "i" and "I" for the
fourth place, but there is the similarity in form that the compositions of the two
trademarks consists of a single vertical line, or a single vertical line and a dot placedon a continual line.

In addition, the placement of the letters, including the spaces in -between letters, is closely similar in the two trademarks.

In that case, it should besaid that the two trademarks have difference in appearance under close observation,
but under observation from a distance, at different times and in different places, thetwo trademarks are confusingly similar.
In addition to the above, the designated goods of the Trademark and the Cited
Trademarks are items of fashion and apparel, or items worn by general consumers, sothat relevant traders and consumers include general consumers.

However, theImportant Part does not generate any special concept, and the appellations generated
from the Important Part and the Cited Trademark 3 are reasonably similar, although
not identical, and it is difficult to say either trademark generates a single, definite
appellation.

As such, for traders and consumers, it seems unlikely that theappellation can be a determining factor as an indicator of source, and upon also
considering that when general consumers try to identify the source of items of apparelor fashion or what they wear, they are believed to pay attention mostly to theappearance of the relevant products or logomarks, so that when the Trademark, which
includes the Important Part that is reasonably similar to Cited Trademark 3 inappellation and confusingly similar to Cited Trademark 3 in appearance, and Cited
Trademark 3 are used for the designated goods of the Trademark, even upon giving
consideration to the fact that the entire composition of the Trademark is not identicalto Cited Trademark 3, the possibility that traders or consumers would be mistaken as
to the source of the trademarks cannot be denied, and thus it is acknowledged that the9

Trademark has a risk of causing misunderstanding or confusion as to the source of thegoods.
Accordingly, upon comprehensively considering the impression, recollection,
association, etc. which traders and consumers receive from the Trademark, in light of
the actual circumstances of transaction pertaining to the goods, it is acknowledgedthat the Trademark is similar to Cited Trademark 3.
(5)

Summary
As described above, the Trademark is similar to Cited Trademark 3.
As described above in (2) C and (3) B, the designated goods of the Trademark

are mostly clothing and bags and other items of fashion and apparel, as well as mobil ephone accessories, headphones, glasses, and other items worn by general consumers.
Meanwhile, the designated goods of Cited Trademark 3 include clothing and bags andother items of fashion and apparel, as well as keyholders and glasses and other items
worn by general consumers, so that it can be said that the designated goods of theTrademark and the designated goods of Cited Trademark 3 are identical or similar.
Accordingly, it is acknowledged that the Trademark falls under Article 4,paragraph (1), item (xi) of the Trademark Act, and thus the JPO's Decision which
ruled otherwise is incorrect, so that Reason 1 for Rescission is justified.
3.

Conclusion
As described above, Reason 1 for Rescission, which is claimed by the Plaintiff,

is justified, and the JPO's Decision shall be rescinded without the Court having todetermine the other reasons for rescission.
Intellectual Property High Court, First Division
Presiding Judge: HONDA Tomonari
Judge: TOYAMA Atsushi
Judge: AMANO Kenji

10

(Attachment 1)
List of Mark

11

(Attachment 2)
List of Cited Trademarks
1.

Trademark Registration No. 1318603 (Exhibit Ko 15; hereinafter referred to as"Cited Trademark 1")
Trademark composition:

Date of application for registration: November 14, 1973
Date of registration: January 10, 1978
Date of reclassification: June 25, 2008
Classification of goods and services, and designated goods or designatedservices (hereinafter simply referred to "Designated Goods, etc." in this Attachment):
Goods indicated on the register of trademarks as belonging to Class 6, Class 14, Class
18, Class 21, Class 22, Class 25, and Class 26.
2.

Trademark Registration No. 1374613 (Exhibit Ko 16; hereinafter referred to as"Cited Trademark 2")
Trademark composition:

Date of application for registration: November 14, 1973
Date of registration: February 27, 1979
Date of reclassification: April 30, 2009
Designated Goods, etc.: Goods indicated on the register of trademarks as
belonging to Class 20, Class 24, and Class 25.
3.

Trademark Registration No. 4640297 (Exhibit Ko 17; hereinafter referred to as"Cited Trademark 3")
Trademark composition:

Date of application for registration: March 4, 2002
12

Date of registration: January 24, 2003
Designated Goods, etc.: Goods indicated on the register of trademarks as
belonging to Class 3, Class 5, Classes 7 to 12, Class 14 (Precious metals; Key rings or
key chains; Dishes of precious metal; Nutcrackers of precious metal, Pepper pots,
Sugar pots, Salt shakers, Egg cups, Napkin holders, Napkin rings, Trays and toothpick
holders; Boxes of precious metal for needles; Candle extinguishers and candle holders
of precious metal; Jewelry boxes of precious metal; Vases and flower bowls of
precious metal; Commemorative cups; Commemorative plaques; Ornaments; Coinpurses and wallets of precious metal; Precious stones and artificial precious stones;
Compacts of precious metal; Shoe trimmings of precious metal; Watches; Tools of
precious metal for smokers) to 16, Class 18 (Fittings of metal for bags; Metal frames
for coin purses; Boxes of leather; Clothing for pets; Bags; Pouches; Vanity cases;
Umbrellas; Sticks; Fittings of metal for sticks; Handles for sticks; Equipment forriding; Leather), Classes 20 to 22, Class 24, Classes 25 (Clothing; Garters; Socksuspenders; Braces for clothing; Bands; Belts; Shoes; Masquerade costumes; Clothes
for sports; Special footwear for sports) to 42.
4.

Trademark Registration No. 4864162 (Exhibit Ko 18; hereinafter referred to as"Cited Trademark 4")
Trademark composition:

Date of application for registration: August 2, 2004
Date of registration: May 13, 2005
Designated Goods, etc.: Goods indicated on the register of trademarks as
belonging to Class 14, Class 16, Class 18, and Class 24
5.

Trademark Registration No. 4869207 (Exhibit Ko 19; hereinafter referred to as"Cited Trademark 5")
Trademark composition:

Date of application for registration: August 2, 2004
Date of registration: June 3, 2005
Designated Goods, etc.: Goods indicated on the register of trademarks as
belonging to Class 25
13

6.

Trademark Registration No. 4887323 (Exhibit Ko 20; hereinafter referred to as"Cited Trademark 6")
Trademark composition:

Date of application for registration: August 2, 2004
Date of registration: August 12, 2005
Designated Goods, etc.: Goods indicated on the register of trademarks as
belonging to Class 3
7.

Trademark Registration No. 5156394 (Exhibit Ko 21; hereinafter referred to as"Cited Trademark 7")
Trademark composition:

Date of application for registration: June 22, 2007
Date of registration: August 1, 2008
Designated Goods, etc.: Services indicated on the register of trademarks as
belonging to Class 35
8Trademark Registration No. 5185473 (Exhibit Ko 22; hereinafter referred to as"Cited Trademark 8")
Trademark composition:

Date of application for registration: June 22, 2007
Date of registration: December 5, 2008
Designated Goods, etc.: Services indicated on the register of trademarks as
belonging to Class 35
9Trademark Registration No. 5185475 (Exhibit Ko 23; hereinafter referred to as"Cited Trademark 9")
Trademark composition:
14

Date of application for registration: June 22, 2007
Date of registration: December 5, 2008
Designated Goods, etc.: Services indicated on the register of trademarks as
belonging to Class 35
10Trademark Registration No. 5185476 (Exhibit Ko 12; hereinafter referred to as"Cited Trademark 10")
Trademark composition:

Date of application for registration: June 22, 2007
Date of registration: December 5, 2008
Designated Goods, etc.: Services indicated on the register of trademarks as
belonging to Class 35
11

Trademark Registration No. 5427419 (Exhibit Ko 24; hereinafter referred to as"Cited Trademark 11")
Trademark composition:

Date of application for registration: February 18, 2011
Date of registration: July 22, 2011
Designated Goods, etc.: Goods or services indicated on the register of
trademarks as belonging to Class 18, Class 25, and Class 35
12Trademark Registration No. 5458511 (Exhibit Ko 25; hereinafter referred to as"Cited Trademark 12")Trademark composition:

15

Date of application for registration: July 19, 2011
Date of registration: December 16, 2011
Designated Goods, etc.: Goods or services indicated on the register of
trademarks as belonging to Class 18, Class 25, and Class 35

16