Articles on Trademark

【Trademark Act ★】A case in which the Court found that the defendant’s marks containing the letter part of “MMPI” which was widely recognized among consumers as that referring to the “Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory”, which is the questionnaire-based psychological testing developed by Hathaway and Mckinley for understanding character tendencies, or to the abbreviation of the testing, correspond to a trademark indicating, “in a common manner”, the “quality” of the designated service pertaining to the Trademark “MMPI”, or “psychological testing”, and that Article 26, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Trademark Act applies to the defendant’s marks and the effect of the right for the Trademark does not extend to the defendant marks.

【Trademark Act ★】A case in which the Court affirmed the Japan Patent Office’s decision which refused an application for registration of a trademark which is a position mark, finding that since the position mark in question cannot be considered to contain distinctive character in its functional composition itself in light of attentiveness possessed by general consumers who are considered as consumers of the designated goods, the position mark in question corresponds to a trademark set forth in Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Trademark Act, and does not correspond to a trademark which has acquired distinctiveness through use as set forth in Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the same Act.

【Trademark Act ★】A case in which the Court affirmed the Japan Patent Office’s decision which refused an application for registration of the mark consisting of the letter “I” and a heart shape placed horizontally side by side, with the letters “JAPAN” written underneath, finding that since the mark in question is one which cannot be recognized by consumers as pertaining to any person’s business, it falls under Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Trademark Act and cannot be registered.

【Trademark Act ★】A case in which the Court affirmed the Japan Patent Office’s decision which refused an application for registration of the mark “TAKAHIROMIYASHITATheSoloist.”, finding that the mark in question consisting of common characters corresponds to a “trademark which contains…the name…of another person” set forth in Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 8 of the Trademark Act, and the mark in question is not acknowledged that the “registration of which has been approved by the person concerned” under the same Item.

【Trademark Act ★】A case in which the Court found that a color trademark consisting solely of orange without contours cannot be said to have acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator under Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Act even if such a trademark has been used for a long period of time for hydraulic excavators, the designated goods of the trademark.

【Trademark Act ★】 A case in which the Court revoked a decision of the Japan Patent Office which refused an application for registration of the mark “CORE ML” by finding that the mark “CORE ML” consisting of common characters is not similar to either of the cited trademarks “CORE” and “コア” (KO-A in English) which consist of common characters.

【Trademark Act ★】 A case in which the Court revoked a decision of the Japan Patent Office which refused an application for registration of the mark “ベジバリア／塩・糖・脂” (BEJIBARIA/Salt・Sugar・Fat) on the grounds that the mark is similar to the registered trademark “塩糖脂” (Salt, Sugar, Fat).

【Trademark Act ★】 A case in which the Court affirmed the use of a registered trademark in Japan based on the intention of a foreign holder of the registered trademark located abroad, and revoked a decision of the Japan Patent Office which had cancelled the registered trademark by reason of non-use.

【Trademark】 Fast-track examination (Changed from February 1, 2020)

【Trademark Act ★】 A case in which the court affirmed the Japan Patent Office’s decision which dismissed a request for trial on the invalidation of a registered trademark for a three-dimensional shape of a “lamp shade”, which is the designated goods of the registered trademark, stating that the registered trademark (the “Trademark”) corresponds to a “trademark [that] consists solely of a mark indicating, in a common manner, in the case of goods, …shape” set forth in Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Trademark Act; however, it corresponds to a “trademark that…may be registered if, as a result of the use of the trademark, consumers are able to recognize the goods…as those pertaining to a business of a particular person” set forth in Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the same Act; and it further does not correspond to a “trademark [that] consists solely of features…that are naturally provided to goods…” set forth in Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 18 of the same Act, nor a “trademark [that] is likely to negatively affect public policy” set forth in Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the same Act; and therefore, the Trademark cannot be invalidated pursuant to the provision of Article 46, Paragraph1 of the same Act.