Famous hotel brand “RITZ” successful in invalidating “RITZ MARCHE”

Invalidation trial

The Japan Trademark Law contains provision for invalidation of trademark registration by means of inter partes trial in Article 46 as a remedy to questionable ex-officio examination of the Japan Patent Office (JPO).
Statistically, approximately 100 invalidation petitions were filed to the JPO in each of the past five years. Nearly 40 percentages of them ended successfully in an invalidation of registered mark in question on average.

[Trademark invalidation trial]

Year Number of cases Disposition of trial
Invalidation Dismissal Withdrawal
2015 100 37 58 19
2014 115 38 32 15
2013 96 37 53 10
2012 118 44 76 16
2011 112 38 57 9

RITZ v. RITZMARCHE

Ritz Hotel Ltd., a world famous hotel management company, petitioned for invalidation of trademark registration no. 5594878 for a word mark “RITZMARCHE” (written in Katakana letter) covering “retail services or wholesale services for foods and beverages” in class 35 pursuant to Article 46 of the Trademark Law on the following grounds.

  1. Consumers are likely to confuse or associate the mark in dispute with Ritz Hotel due to remarkable reputation bestowed on famous hotel brand, “RITZ”.
  2. “RITZMARCHE” is deemed confusingly similar to senior trademark registrations owned by Ritz Hotel Ltd.

[Marks in dispute]

Ground 1 corresponds to on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law to prohibit any mark likely to cause confusion with a business of another entity from being registered.

Ground 2 rests on Article 4(1)(xi) to bar registration of a junior mark which conflicts with any senior trademark registration due to similarity of both marks and goods/services.

It becomes a common practice to raise several grounds in an invalidation petition. Combination of Article 4(1)(xv) and 4(1)(xi) is a standard tactic in trademark dispute involving a famous brand. Theoretically, Article 4(1)(xv) can’t be applied unless Article 4(1)(x) is inapplicable to the case. Article 4(1)(xi) is useful to the extent the marks as well as goods/services in question are identical or similar. In the meantime, Article 4(1)(xv)   targets a wider territory where consumers are likely to confuse the source of origin between marks. In other words, Article 4(1)(xv) becomes helpful only where both marks are dissimilar, or goods/services in question are deemed dissimilar. Due to a wider protection to Article 4(1)(xv), a petitioner who claims the article is required to prove high recognition and substantial use of an opposing mark accordingly.

It is of no matter that JPO renders an invalidation decision simply based on Article 4(1)(xi) without reference to Article 4(1)(xv).

On the Ritz case, the JPO Trial Board held to invalidate registered mark “RITZMARCHE” on the grounds of Article 4(1)(xi).


Board decision

In the assessment of similarity, the Board considered a term “MARCHE” is less distinctive or inherently descriptive in connection with “retail services or wholesale services for foods and beverages” of class 35 since the term itself means “market” in French. Besides it can be seen often as a sign to indicate a place where merchants provide foods or beverages directly to consumers in Japan. Meanwhile, average consumers with an ordinary care are unlikely to perceive any descriptive meaning from the term of “RITZ”. Therefore, in the configuration of disputed mark “RITZMARCHE”, it should be allowed to extract the term “RITZ” as a prominent part of the mark.

In comparing the Katakana letter of “Ritz” with alphabetical term “RITZ” of cited marks, both have same sound. Their meaning is incomparable since both don’t give rise to specific meaning. Both terms are different in appearance, however, it becomes commercially routine to write alphabetical names in Katakana letters for purpose of representing pronunciation of the terms in fact. Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that “RITZMARCHE” and Ritz Hotel registered marks containing a term of “RITZ” are confusingly similar as a whole, by taking into consideration of relevant factors in commerce relevant to disputed goods/services. The Board also held that “retail services or wholesale services for foods and beverages” in class 35 is considered similar to food products in class 30 designated under the citations.
[Invalidation case no. 2016-890033]

The Board didn’t refer to Article 4(1)(xv) although Ritz Hotel argued famousness of cited mark “RITZ” with enormous amount of evidential materials as mentioned reason.
If Ritz Hotel has filed the invalidation action solely based on Article 4(1)(xv), the JPO must have admitted famousness of the mark “RITZ” and invalidated “RITZMARCHE” likewise.


NEW TRADEMARK EXAMINATION GUIDELINE

In April 2017, the JPO announced new trademark examination guideline [Revision 13].
The guideline aims to reflect recent judicial decisions and non-traditional trademarks. Inter alia, Article 4(1)(xi) is hot topic due to its significance as a key provision pertinent to assessment of mark similarity. From now on, it is more likely that the JPO admits an argument of prominent part of trademark than before, even if the mark consists of other words or figurative elements.
I suppose, the RITZ case is timely ruled in line with New Guideline.

MASAKI MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

Can shape of musical instruments play a role of trademark?

In a dispute of registrability to a unique three-dimensional shape of electric violins, the Appeal Board admitted protection of the mark based on distinctiveness acquired by means of substantial publicity of the violins [Appeal case no. 2016-1859].

YAMAHA Corporation applied for 3D shape of electric violin promoted under the name of “SILENT Violin” by designating electric violins of class 15 on September 24, 2014 [TM application no. 2014-80685].

 


Initial examination

Examiner rejected the applied mark by stating that;

“Unsymmetrical appearance of the applied mark can still be perceived as a three-dimensional shape of electric or electronic violins in its entirety.According to information retrieved from the websites, unsymmetrical violins have been distributed with an attempt to aesthetic appearance or weight saving.Admittedly, the applied 3D shape contributes to enhance function or aesthetic appeal of electric violins, however, the shape is deemed equivalent to a mark solely consisting of the shape of goods in a common manner to the extent that relevant traders and/or consumers are unlikely to recognize the shape as a source indicator. Hence, the mark is subject to Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law.”

Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law

Any trademark to be used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant may be registered, unless the trademark:

(iii) consists solely of a mark indicating, in a common manner, in the case of goods, the place of origin, place of sale, quality, raw materials, efficacy, intended purpose, quantity, shape (including shape of packages), price, the method or time of production or use, or, in the case of services, the location of provision, quality, articles to be used in such provision, efficacy, intended purpose, quantity, modes, price or method or time of provision;


Appeal Trial

In this regard, the Appeal Board also sustained examiner’s decision and dismissed applicant argument of inherent distinctiveness of the applied 3D shape.

In the meantime, the Board granted protection of the 3D shape due to acquired distinctiveness based on Article 3(2) of the Trademark Law.

Article 3(2) of the Trademark Law

Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a trademark that falls under any of items (iii) to (v) of the preceding paragraph may be registered if, as a result of the use of the trademark, consumers are able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.

Acquired distinctiveness

YAMAHA Corporation has distributed electric violins “SILENT Violin” with a configuration of applied mark since 1997.
http://usa.yamaha.com/products/musical-instruments/strings/silentviolins/
The 3D shape has been continuously promoted in musical instruments magazines, a website and catalogues of applicant, and newspapers in a manner that readers can be attracted by its unique design. Winning various design awards and appearing in school textbooks as an example of industrial designs bolster remarkable reputation to the shape as well. Annual sale of “SILENT Violin” exceeding 100 million yen nationwide for last fifteen years is extremely higher than competitors.

Based on the foregoing, the Board stated;

It should be concluded that as a result of continuous and substantive use of the applied 3D mark since 1997, relevant consumers casting a glance at the mark are likely to conceive it as a source indicator of applicant business when used on electric violins.
Thus, the applied mark is eligible for registration in connection with electric violins of class 15 based on Article 3(2) of the Trademark Law.


Masaki MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law
Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM 

 

 

Chemical Equation can function as a trademark?

The Appeal Board of JPO dismissed examiner’s rejection and admitted registration of a below mark appearing to be a chemical equation in association with the goods of alcoholic beverages, namely, distilled rice spirits, fruit wines, sake substitute, Japanese white liquor, Sake, Chinese liquors, Japanese Shochu-based beverages, Naoshi [Japanese liquor], Flavored tonic liquors, Japanese sweet rice-based mixed liquor, and western liquors in class 33. [Appeal case no. 2016-17500]

[Mark in question]


Initial examination

At an initial examination, the JPO examiner refused the mark [TM application no. 2015-111054] based on Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law by concluding that the mark, representing a chemical equation to generate ethyl alcohol(C2H5OH) and carbon dioxide(CO2) from glucose(C6H12O6) as a whole, can be perceived as a mere indication to appeal the goods produced by alcoholic fermentation in the mind of consumers with an ordinary care when used on alcoholic beverages in class 33.


Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Law

Article 3(1)(vi) is a comprehensive provision aiming to prohibit any mark lacking inherent distinctiveness from being registered.

Any trademark to be used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant may be registered, unless the trademark:
(vi) is in addition to those listed in each of the preceding items, a trademark by which consumers are not able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.


Baord decision

In the meantime, the Appeal Board stated that ordinary consumers were unlikely to perceive the mark as chemical equation to represent alcoholic fermentation generated from glucose. Besides, there find no circumstance to show the chemical equation has been used frequently as a result of ex officio investigation. Thus, it is groundless to conclude the chemical equation lacks inherent distinctiveness in association with goods of class 33. Provided that the mark does not fall under Article 3(1)(vi), the initial examination loses its ground to refuse and should be dismissed accordingly.


Apparently, the Board paid an excessive attention to circumstance whether chemical equation or chemical formula are commonly used on alcoholic beverages. Even if ordinary consumers are not accustomed to such chemical expressions, I suppose, the JPO should refrain from admitting inherent distinctiveness of the expressions since nobody will consider it as a source indicator in fact.

 

Masaki MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law, Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

Converse unsuccessful in obtaining 3D trademark protection of Chuck Taylor All Star sneakers

The Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to reject protection of a three-dimensional shape of Chuck Taylor All Star sneakers in connection with “sneakers” in class 25 (TM application no. 2014-79258) based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law by stating that the applied 3D mark, solely consisting of a shape commonly used on High Top Sneakers, is expectedly perceived as shape aiming to enhance aesthetic appeal in the mind of consumers and deemed inherently descriptive accordingly.
[Appeal case no. 2015-14749, January 18, 2017]

The Board admitted Chuck Taylor All Star sneaker as well as its name have become well-known as a source indicator of classic High Top Sneaker based on the facts that (i) Converse, a US merchant, has consecutively promoted the sneaker since 1917 without material change of the design, (ii) 5.2 million pairs of the sneaker were purchased in Japan since April 2008 at least, and (iii) it was continuously featured on newspapers and magazines.
However, the Board concluded it remained unclear whether the applied 3D shape has become well-known in itself and consumers are unlikely to recognize the shape as a source indicator on the following grounds.

  • Shape of goods essentially results from functional or aesthetic appeal. Unlike in the case of trademark depicted in the flat such as letter, figurative element, or symbols, consumers are neither accustomed nor likely to recognize 3D shape of goods as a role to indicate its source in general.
  • Similar sneakers have been distributed by many suppliers, e.g. GU, LEVIS, ADIDAS, RALPH LAUREN, PUMA, NIKE, MOONSTAR. As long as the shape already becomes a standard design of High Top Sneakers among competitors, granting exclusive protection to the applied 3D mark may disorder the status quo undesirably. Even if similar sneaks turn out to be imitations or counterfeits of Chuck Taylor All Star sneaker as applicant argued, unless applicant takes remedial actions to cease the products, the argument is less persuasive and inadmissible.
  • According to market survey conducted at Tokyo, Aichi and Osaka involving 1,500 interviewees, more than half of them could not perceive the applied 3D mark as Chuck Taylor All Star sneaker. 60% perception among primary consumers from age 10 to 49 is still insufficient.

It is undeniable that applicant neglected similar sneakers by numerous competitors for years and the circumstance adversely affected to the decision as market survey did in contradiction to its expected role.
Timing is of the essence to protect 3D shape of goods successfully.  

MASAKI MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

The IP High Court ruled a trademark “TOMATO SYSTEM” is deemed similar to “TOMATO” in connection with the service of computer programming

On March 23, 2017, in a lawsuit disputing registrability of an applied word mark “TOMATO SYSTEM” in standard character designating goods of electronic machines, apparatus and parts thereof (Class 9), and services of computer software design, computer programing, or maintenance of computer software; technological advice relating to computers, automobiles and industrial machines; testing or research on machines, apparatus and instruments; providing computer programs on data networks (Class 42), the IP High Court upheld the original refusal decision rendered by the JPO Appeal Board and dismissed the lawsuit filed by applicant, Ishiguro Medical System Co., Ltd. [Case No. Heisei 28 (Gyo-Ke) 10208].

 


 

JPO decision

Initially, JPO examiner rejected to register the applied mark “TOMATO SYSTEM” due to conflict with senior registration no. 4394923 for word mark “TOMATO” in standard character designating services of technological advice relating to computers; computer software design in Class 42 (Citation 1) and no. 5238348 for “tomato” with a device mark designating retail/wholesale services for electrical machinery and apparatus in Class 35 (Citation 2). Applicant sought to file an appeal against the rejection by arguing dissimilarity of both marks, however, the Appeal Board decided to refuse the applied mark on the basis of Article 4 (1) (xi) of the Trademark Law in a decision dated July 28, 2016 [Appeal Case No. 2016-2278].

In the decision, the Board concluded “TOMATO”, an English term meaning red edible fruit, does not imply any descriptive meaning in association with the designated goods and services. In the meantime, a term “SYSTEM” easily reminds consumers of meanings to suggest organized, purposeful structure that consists of interrelated and interdependent elements when used on machines, apparatus and computer software. Unless we find conceptual connection between two terms, it is allowed to segregate the applied mark into each element in the assessment of mark comparison. If so, relevant consumers at an ordinary care are likely to consider the term “TOMATO” as a predominant portion of the applied mark. Based on the foregoing, the Board judged the applied mark is deemed similar to Citation 1 and 2.


IP High Court 

In the lawsuit, plaintiff claimed the Board decision was defectively inappropriate since it is not allowed to segregate each term composing the applied mark in light of tight combination of both terms and ambiguous meaning of the term “SYSTEM” in relating to designated goods and services.

The Court upheld the Board decision by declaring “SYSTEM” is less distinctive in connection with goods or services relating to information processing. Therefore, it is permissible to segregate the applied mark into each element and to judge similarity of mark based on a predominant element of the mark in dispute.



MASAKI MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

 

 

A word mark consisting of “Perfect” is deemed dissimilar to Spanish term “PERFECTO”

The Appeal Board of JPO (Japan Patent Office), in an appeal disputing adequacy of examiner’s decision to refuse trademark application for a word mark “Perfect” on the grounds of conflict with a senior registration for word mark “PERFECTO”, overturned examiner’s decision and admitted to grant protection of the mark “Perfect”. [Fufuku 2016-13360]

The mark in dispute was filed on June 8, 2015 designating computer program and other goods in class 9. As a result of ex-officio examination, the JPO examiner refused the mark due to conflict with senior trademark registration no. 5019378 for word mark “PERFECTO” in standard character. Cited registration has been effective since January 19, 2007 covering identical goods in class 9.

In the decision, the Appeal Board held the term “PERFECTO” is unfamiliar to relevant consumers in Japan unlike an English word “Perfect”. Besides, there finds no circumstance to suggest the term is commonly used in connection with the goods in dispute. Thus, the consumers are likely to conceive the term as a coined word.

In the assessment of mark, the Board admitted both marks give rise to same sound, however, concluded it is unlikely to happen that consumers confuse or misconceive a source of origin between the marks in view of distinction in appearance, meaning and overall impression.


Apparently, the Board considered a mere difference arising from alphabetical letter “O” at the ending of both terms is non-negligible in visual and conceptual assessment of the marks by taking into consideration of a fact that “Perfect” is much familiar English word among the public in Japan.

In my personal opinion, the decision paid less attention to Spanish language to my surprise.

MASAKI MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

RED TAB jeans position mark is subject to cancellation in association with goods not having “a back pocket of trousers”

The opposition board of JPO decided to partially cancel trademark registration no. 5807881 for RED TAB position mark (shown in below) covering goods in Class 25 owned by EDWIN KK on the grounds that the registration fails to conform to the requirements provided in the main paragraph of Article 3 (1) of the Trademark Law.


The position mark in dispute was filed on April 1, 2015 by designating the goods of “Trousers; long trousers; short trousers; jogging pants; sweat pants; ski pants; nightwear; pajamas; Japanese sleeping robes; underwear; drawers and underpants; panties, shorts and briefs; clothes for sports” in class 25 and registered on November 20, 2015 as it is.

In filing a position mark, it is mandatory to specify position of the mark in connection with goods applicant seeks to register.

Disputed registration specifies the mark as follows.

The trademark for which registration is sought (hereinafter referred to as the “trademark”) is a Position mark in which a position affixed to the trademark is specified, the trademark is affixed to the upper left part of a back pocket of trousers, and consists of a red rectangular tab figure in which Alphabetic characters of “EDWIN” are indicated. Incidentally, description of only a pocket and a tab figure is an enlarged drawing of a portion for obviously describing a mark affixed to the position. Further, broken lines represent one of the shapes of goods, and do not represent a component constituting the trademark.

The main paragraph of Article 3 (1) requires an applied trademark should be either currently in use or planned to use. Opponent, EVISU JAPAN LIMITED, did not contend this respect at an initial opposition brief, however, the Board raised the ground as a result of ex-officio examination in accordance with Article 43-9 (1) of the Trademark Law.

The Opposition Board notified the ground and ordered EDWIN to respond it if unacceptable. But EDWIN did not respond to the notification.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded:

it cannot be conceived the mark is used in “Night gowns; Negligees; Japanese sleeping robes; bathrobes; other nightwear of which trousers have no back pocket; undershirts; corsets; chemises; slips; brassieres; petticoats; other underwear of which trousers have no back pocket; anoraks; karate suits; sports over uniforms; kendo outfits; judo suits; headbands; wind-jackets; wristbands; other cloths for sports of which trousers have no back pocket, of the designated goods, and it cannot be recognized that the mark is a trademark to be used in connection with goods pertaining to the business of the applicant, and hence the mark does not meet the requirements of the main paragraph of Article 3(1) of the Trademark Law.


Evidently, this is a first cancellation to position mark which becomes registrable under the New Trademark Law effective from April 1, 2015.


MASAKI MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

“PIKA-Q” is unlikely to confuse with a well-known iconic mascot name, “PIKACHU”

PIKACHU

Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to dismiss an opposition filed by Nintendo Co., Ltd. who claimed trademark registration no. 5845409 for the word mark “ピカキュウ” (to be pronounced as “PIKA-Q”) in a standard character designating goods of “lighting apparatus for automobiles; electric lamps” in class 11 and “retail or wholesale services dealing with the goods” in class 35 should be cancelled due to a likelihood of confusion with senior trademark registrations (Citation 1 and 2) pertinent to a well-known iconic mascot name “PIKACHU”, a fictitious monster appeared in Pokémon of opponent’s commercial interest [Case No. Opposition 2016-900226].

PIKACHU vs. PIKA-Q

JPO admitted “PIKACHU” has attained a certain level of recognition amongst consumers as Pokémon characters name in association with opponent’s game and toy businesses, however, concluded that opposed mark is distinguishable from and distinctively dissimilar to the citations on the following grounds.

– In appearance, the word “ピカキュウ” of opposed mark written in Katakana characters looks similar to “ピカチュウ” in the citations since visual difference in a middle letter of “キ” and “チ” is trivial in light of resembled configuration of respective letter consisting of two horizontal lines and a vertical line.

– But, “PIKA-Q” and “PIKACHU” are phonetically distinguishable as a whole since both terms are different in overall nuance and tone by taking into consideration of a non-negligible effect caused by difference in the third sound of “kyu” and “chu”, and a few phonetic composition of four sounds in total.

– Both marks are deemed incomparably dissimilar in concept on the condition that opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning, but the citations are perceived as PIKACHU in Pokémon.

Besides, the Board held that relevant consumers are not only unlikely to associate or misconceive opposed mark used on the goods/services supra with the citations but also connect or confuse a source of the goods/services with opponent or related entities with commercial or organizational interest should it remain unclear whether opponent does or will expand business in association with the goods/services of opposed mark. Finding that any goods licensed by opponent is remotely associated with the opposed goods/services and the citations representing Pokémon characters do not correspond to a so-called “house mark” in opponent business, JPO concluded as mentioned above.

“PIKA-Q” appears a trademark parody originated from well-known iconic mascot name, “PIKACHU”. It is presumed that actual use on LED lamp for automobiles implying a meaning of quality of the lamp (PIKA is an imitative word to describe sudden brightness of lamp in Japanese) may affect to the Board decision.

MASAKI MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law (Japan)

MASAKI MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law (Japan) – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

Nintendo sues go-kart company over copyright infringement and disputes over “MariCar” trademark

 

Copyright infringement lawsuit

On February 24, 2017, Nintendo Co., the Kyoto-based video game giant filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court against a Tokyo-based go-kart service operator, MariCar, for alleged copyright violations.

MariCar rents out go-karts that have been modified to run on public roads.

The go-kart service is exceedingly popular with foreign tourists, with many of the participants donning costumes that look similar to Nintendo game characters such as Super Mario.
http://maricar.com/


In the suit, Nintendo claims MariCar violated copyright by renting unauthorized costumes of Nintendo game characters such as Super Mario to its customers and using pictures of them to promote its business.

Nintendo is seeking ¥10 million in damages from the company and an end to the alleged copyright infringement.


Dispute over the MariCar trademark  

Nintendo also alleged in an opposition over the MariCar trademark registration No. 5860284 covering goods and services in class 12 ,35 and 39 that MariCar is an abbreviation of “Mario Kart,” one of its blockbuster game titles, however, the JPO rules against Nintendo to admit go-kart company keep MariCar trademark in a decision dated Jan. 26, 2017 [Opposition No. 2016-900309].

In the opposition, Nintendo claimed that MariCar was widely interpreted by the public as short for “Mario Kart,” citing other examples of popular video games that go by abbreviated nicknames in Japanese, such as “Pokemon” for “Pocket Monsters,” “Pazudora” for “Puzzle & Dragons” and “Sumabura” for “Super Smash Bros.”
Consequently, the Opposition Board of JPO denied it and held the trademark MariCar was neither widely used nor recognized by game users as an abbreviation of Nintendo’s blockbuster video game title “Mario Kart,” adding that it was “an unassociated trademark.”

 


 

MASAKI MIKAMI, Attorney at IP Law (Japan) – Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM

JPO eventually allowed registration of color marks since commencement of Non-Traditional trademark application in 2015

On March 1st, 2017, the JPO announced to allow registration of color marks for the first time ever since commencement of Non-Traditional trademark application in April, 2015.

The trademark law of Japan protects sound marks, motion marks, position marks, hologram and color marks as well as traditional marks provided they meet all the other criteria for a valid trademark.

First color marks registration

The honor of first color marks registration went to (i) a three-color-combination mark in blue, white and black for goods of “erasers” in class 16 owned by Tombow Pencil Co., Ltd. and (ii) a seven-color-combination mark in white, orange, white, green, white, red and white for retail services in class 35 owned by Seven-Eleven Japan Co., Ltd..

Tombow Pencil Co., Ltd. has used the three-color-marks on erasers and other stationery.

tombow

The seven-color-marks is a symbolic design representing well-known convenience store of Seven-Eleven Japan Co., Ltd.

%e3%82%bb%e3%83%96%e3%82%a4%e3%83%ac

According to the announcement from the JPO, 492 applications for color marks were filed since April, 2015 so far. Above color marks were both filed on the very beginning day of Non-Traditional trademark application. Taking into consideration of a six-month examination period on average for traditional marks, it has obviously spent substantial time even when it compares with other Non-Traditional marks. As of February 20, 2017, 110 sound marks are registered among 517 applications. 23 position marks are registered among 345 applications. 65 motion marks are registered among 123 applications.

It is anticipated that the JPO expedites to terminate examination for color marks in the months ahead.

1187hirai%e4%bf%ae%e6%ad%a3003
MASAKI MIKAMI – Attorney at IP Law, JAPAN
Founder of MARKS IP LAW FIRM