If you’re curious about how trademark infringement is analyzed across different countries, the recent case between Gucci and CUGGL offers a compelling example. A Japanese brand registered a mark that looked harmless on paper, but not so harmless in real-world use. See: Registration No. 6384970.
The Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently approved a trademark registration for the brand name CUGGL in logo form under International Class 25 for apparel. On paper, the logo appeared fairly innocuous: the letters CUGGL in all caps, partially obscured at the bottom by a pink paint streak.
But real-world use told a different story.
The company behind the mark, owned by Nobuaki Kurokawa, sells shirts featuring a nearly identical design—with one key difference: the pink paint streak is higher up, partially covering the letters in a way that makes the word appear to read “GUCCI.”
As you can see, the logo is pretty inoffensive. The words CUGGL appear in all capital letters, with a pink paint streak covering maybe 1/6th of the bottom of the letters.
But all is not what it seems. Applicant, Nobuaki Kurokawa, owns a company that sell shirts bearing a similar logo, with one minor difference – the pink paint streak is higher up. So high up in fact, that what you see looks a lot like it says “GUCCI.” Check it out:
Enter Gucci.
Not surprisingly, the fashion giant filed an Opposition to registration of the CUGGL logo. They argued that the CUGGL logo should be blocked from registration, because it was too similar to the Gucci trademark, and that Kurokawa was doing it on purpose.
The ins and outs of analyzing whether two trademarks are too similar is different in every jurisdiction, but the general theme is usually the same. If the trademarks, as applied to the goods or services, are such that a consumer would likely think the goods or services come from the same source, then they are too similar.
The fact that the JPO allowed this trademark might, at first blush, seem bizarre, but the JPO’s hands were tied. Examiners and Opposition boards are tasked with comparing a trademark as it appears in an application, not as it appears elsewhere. Sure, circumstantial evidence is also considered, but in this case, the JPO found that it simply did not outweigh the dissimilarity of the trademarks.
That being said, an infringement lawsuit would probably go a little different. While the logo in the Application does not look like it says Gucci, the logo on the shirt certainly does. The court would be able to compare the logo on the shirt with the Gucci trademark, rather than be restricted to comparing it only to the logo in the Application.
If Gucci took the next step and filed, it would not be Applicant’s first fight. Kurokawa’s company makes a habit of selling apparel with designs that look suspiciously like other fashion brands. That would support the argument that the infringement was intentional, something the court can look at too.
The Bigger Lesson for Brand Owners
This case highlights a crucial lesson: trademark registration and trademark enforcement are not the same.
- Trademark offices focus on what’s filed.
- Courts focus on how the mark is actually used.
If your mark appears deceptive or confusing in practice—even if it passed registration scrutiny—you could still face legal consequences.
For startups, artists, or businesses thinking of “parodying” or tweaking a famous brand: be cautious. Trademark enforcement is about protecting consumers from confusion—and courts look at intent, context, and market impact.
Bottom Line: Just because a mark is registered doesn’t mean it won’t land you in court. Always consider how your brand might be perceived in real-world use—especially when it’s close to a major player like Gucci.
Have questions about your trademark application?
Contact Stemer Law | hello@stemerlaw.com | (303) 928-1094 | Based in Colorado | Serving clients nationwide
Leave a Reply