(Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v. Rizhao Kaishun Tire Co. Ltd. (Nov. 16, 2017)

Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited opposed the DUNLOHOO trademark application of Rizhao Kaishun Tire Co., Ltd (“Rizhao”) on the basis of its existing registration for DUNLOP which covers “tyres made India rubber” under class 12. Rizhao’s trademark application for DUNLOHOO covers the following class 12 goods: “tractors; inner tubes for pneumatic tires [tyres]; automobile tires [tyres]; electric vehicles; motorcycles; cars; bicycles; mobility scooters; tyres for vehicle wheels; solid tyres for vehicle wheels”.

The IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs sustained the opposition and pointed out that Rizhao copied the first five (5) letters “D-U-N-L-O” in Sumitomo’s mark “DUNLOP” and added the three (3) additional letters “H-O-O” in an attempt to vary it from Sumitomo’s mark. The IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs however ruled that “confusing similarity cannot be eluded” and that “the conclusion created by the use of the same word as the primary element in a trademark is not countenanced by the addition of another term”.

Moreover, the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs found that the goods upon which the competing marks are used are similar, if not identical. Thus, the likelihood that the consumers would be mistaken, confused or deceived into believing that the goods come from the same source or origin, is greater than when the goods are non-competing. As such, the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs denied Rizhao’s trademark application for DUNLOHOO.