GODZILLA defeated GUZZILLA in IP High Court trademark battle

On June 12, 2018, the Japan IP High Court denied the JPO Trial Board decision and sided with TOHO Co., Ltd., a Japanese filmmaker that unleashed Godzilla on the world, in a trademark dispute between GODZILLA and GUZZILLA.
[Judicial case no. H29(Gyo-ke)10214]

GODZILLA

TOHO Co., Ltd., the top and oldest Japanese filmmaker, is known worldwide for unleashing Godzilla in 1954. Godzilla, known as the King of the Monsters, is a giant irradiated prehistoric amphibious reptile appearing in the films produced by TOHO. TOHO has produced more than 20 Godzilla flicks, including 1999’s Godzilla 2000: Millennium, and 2014’s GODZILLA.

GUZZILLA

Taguchi Industrial Co., Ltd., a Japanese manufacturer of attachments for construction machinery, filed an trademark application for the “GUZZILLA” mark (see below) in November 21, 2011 by designating mining machines, construction machines, loading-unloading machines, agricultural machines, waste compacting machines, waste crushing machines in class 7. JPO registered the mark on April 27, 2012.
The “GUZZILLA” mark has been used on attachments for construction machinery by Taguchi. (see website of Taguchi – http://en.taguchi.co.jp/series/guzzilla/)

 

Invalidation Trial

On February 22, 2017, two months before a lapse of five years from the registration, TOHO requested for invalidation trial based on Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law and asserted relevant consumers or traders are likely to confuse or misconceive a source of the “GUZZILLA” mark with TOHO or a business entity systematically or economically connected with TOHO when used on designated goods in class 7 due to close resemblance between “GUZZILLA” and “GODZILLA”.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entity’s well-known goods or services, to the benefit of brand owner and users’ benefits.

The Trial Board admitted a high degree of popularity and reputation of “GODZILLA” as a name of monster appeared in films produced by TOHO, however, the invalidation trial was totally dismissed since the Board found no likelihood of confusion in view of remote association between TOHO’s business and designated goods in class 7 (Trial case no. 2017-890010).

To contest the decision, TOHO appealed to the IP High Court.

 

IP High Court ruling

IP High Court set aside the decision and ruled in favor of TOHO.

In the ruling, the Court pointed out a fact that designated goods in question include pneumatic jacks, electric jacks, chain blocks, winches, mowing machines, and hedge trimmers. These goods have a certain degree of association with toys or groceries of TOHO’s interest in the aspect of use, objective and consumer. Besides, relevant consumers of goods in question rely on not only quality and function of goods but also goodwill in trademark at the time of purchasing such goods. If so, the Court finds that, by taking into consideration famousness and originality of “GODZILLA” as a source indicator of TOHO’s business as well as close resemblance of both marks, relevant consumers of above goods (class 7) designated under the “GUZZILLA” mark are likely to associate the goods with “GODZILLA” and thus confuse its source with TOHO or a business entity systematically or economically connected with TOHO.

Court also held that a well-known “GODZILLA” mark gives rise to a meaning of imaginary giant monster in films and an image of strength by means of the monster’s action devastating city and buildings. Inter alia, purchasers of pneumatic jacks in question are likely to receive an incentive to buy “GODZILLA” in anticipation of strong performance of the jacks as GODZILLA did.

Based on the foregoing, the court decided invalidation of “GUZZILLA” trademark registration based on Article 4(1)(xv).


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

JPO refused to register word mark “ROMEO GIGLI” due to lack of consent from Italian fashion designer

In a recent decision, the Appeal Board of Japan Patent Office (JPO) refused to register trademark application no. 2015- 100245 for a red-colored word mark “ROMEO GIGLI” in gothic script (see below) designating goods of Class 24 and 25 on the grounds that applicant failed to obtain a consent from Italian fashion designer, Romeo Gigli, based on Article 4(1)(viii) of the Trademark Law.[Case no. 2017-3558]

Disputed mark was filed on October 16, 2015 in the name of ECCENTRIC SRL, an Italian legal entity, by designating following goods in Class 24 and 25.

Class 24:

“woven fabrics; elastic woven material; bed and table linen; towels of textile; bed blankets; table cloths of textile; bed covers; bed sheets; curtains of textile or plastic; table napkins of textile; quilts”

Class 25:

“clothing; T-shirts; shirts; jumpers; trousers; pants; jackets; skirts; jeans; neckties; overcoats; coats; belts; gloves; mufflers; sweat suits; underwear; swimsuits; headgear; hats; caps; footwear; special footwear for sports”

 

Article 4(1)(viii)

On December 9, 2016, JPO examiner refused the mark based on Article 4(1)(viii) of the Trademark Law.

Article 4(1)(viii) is a provision to prohibit registration of trademarks which contain the representation or name of any person, famous pseudonym, professional name or pen name of another person, or famous abbreviation thereof. Notwithstanding the provision, the article is not applicable where the applicant of disputed mark produces the written consent of the person.

The Supreme Court of Japan has ruled the article shall be interpreted to protect personal rights of a living individual. In line with the Supreme Court ruling, Trademark Examination Manuals (TEM) set forth that the article is applicable not only to natural persons (including foreigners) and corporations but also associations without capacity. Familiar name of foreigners falls under the category of “abbreviation” if its full name contains middle name(s) unknown to Japanese consumer.

Click here to access TEM on the JPO website.

Finding that disputed mark just consists of an individual name of famous fashion designer, Romeo Gigli, the examiner raised an objection based on Article 4(1)(viii) unless ECCENTRIC SRL obtains a consent from the designer.

 

APPEAL

The applicant filed a notice of appeal with the Appeal Board, a body within JPO responsible for hearing and deciding certain kinds of cases including appeals from decisions by JPO Examiners denying registration of marks, on March 9, 2017 and contended against the refusal decision by examiner.

During the appeal trial, ECCENTRIC SRL argued inadequacy of the decision by demonstrating following facts.

  • ECCENTRIC SRL is a legitimate successor of trademark rights owned by Romeo Gigli as a consequence of mandatory handover resulting from bankruptcy of company managed by Romeo Gigli irrespective of his intention. Under the circumstance, it is almost impossible to obtain a written consent from him.
  • In the meantime, ECCENTRIC SRL has already obtained trademark registrations for the word mark “ROMEO GIGLI” in several jurisdictions.
  • Besides, ECCENTRIC SRL is a current registrant of Japanese TM registration no. 2061302 for identical wordmark in Class 4,18,21 and 26.
  • There has been no single complaint from consumers, traders or Romeo Gigli in person.

ECCENTRIC SRL alleged that the above facts shall amount to having obtained an implicit consent from Romeo Gigli in fact. Thus, disputed mark shall be allowed for registration even without a written consent in the context of purpose of the article.

The Appeal Board dismissed the appeal, however, and sustained the examiner’s decision by saying that trademark registrations in foreign countries shall not be a decisive factor in determining registrability of disputed mark under Article 4(1)(viii) in Japan. Absence of complaint from Romeo Gigli shall not be construed that he has consented to register his name in the territory of Japan explicitly or implicitly.

Unless applicant produces evidence regarding a consent from Romeo Gigli otherwise, disputed mark shall be refused to register based on Article 4(1)(viii) of the Trademark Law.

According to the JPO database, ECCENTRIC SRL filed an appeal against the Board decision to the IP High Court in November 2017. The Court decision will be rendered within a couple of months.


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

 

IP High Court admitted high reputation of Red Bull mark in relation to automobiles as well

In a lawsuit disputing similarity of red-colored bull device marks, the IP High Court nullified the JPO decision in favor of Red Bull GmbH known for Red Bull energy drink, and ruled to invalidate TM registration no. 5664585 (Disputed Mark) on the ground that it is likely to cause confusion with the Red Bull Mark.
[Case no. Heisei29(Gyo-ke)10080,  Judgement date: December 25, 2017]

Disputed Mark, filed on October 4, 2013 by designating various goods for automobiles in class 1,3,4 and 5, e.g. detergent additives to gasoline, was registered on April 18, 2014 by a Korean distributor dealing with goods related to automobiles. Prior to the appeal to the IP High Court, Red Bull was unsuccessful to attack Disputed Mark in an opposition and invalidation trial.

The Court concluded that relevant traders and consumers at the sight of designated goods using Disputed Mark would likely connect it with famous Red Bull Mark, and consequently misbelieve the source of the goods from Red Bull, an entity economically related to Red Bull, or a paerner authorized to use Red Bull Mark in business based on the following findings.

Trademark similarity

Both marks are visually confusing irrespective of differences in detail since the marks share basic configuration of depicting a left-pointing horned red bull in a vibrant motion over yellow and warm color of background. Besides, Disputed Mark gives rise to a meaning of a red-colored jumping bull and Red Bull Mark does a meaning of a red-colored rushing bull. If so, it is obvious that both marks are almost identical or similar in concept. Therefore, Disputed Mark is deemed substantially similar to Red Bull Mark.

High reputation of Red Bull Mark

Red Bull Mark, as a source indicator of plaintiff, becomes well-known not only in the field of energy drinks but also among traders and consumers of goods related to automobiles. Admittedly, it has acquired a high degree of reputation.

Consumers

Consumes of automobile goods are not limited to car enthusiast. They can be purchased by the general consuming public. Plaintiff has distributed various types of goods relating to automobiles and car race with Red Bull Mark for promotional purpose under the scheme of trademark license. It is undeniable that most of the public with an ordinary care are neither precisely familiar with trademark and brand in detail, nor always mindful to manufacturer and source indicators in the selection of goods.


It is noteworthy that the Court admitted high reputation of Red Bull Mark in the field of automobiles as well even if it evidently represents one of sponsors for car racing team

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

IP High Court reversed JPO decision pertinent to a likelihood of confusion between men’s fashion magazines and male cosmetics

In a judgement pronounced on November 14, 2017, the IP High Court of Japan ruled to reverse JPO decision which negated a likelihood of confusion between MEN’S CLUB brand men’s fashion magazine and the same brand male cosmetics.[Court case no. H29(Gyo-ke)10109]

MEN’S CLUB magazine

The lawsuit was filed by a publisher of the MEN’S CLUB magazine who unsuccessfully challenged to invalidate TM registration no. 5858891 for a word mark “MEN’S CLUB” in standard character covering goods of male cosmetics in class 3 (hereinafter referred to as “Disputed mark”).

MEN’S CLUB magazine has been continuously published past six decades since 1965 in Japan.

 

TM Registration 5858891 – MEN’S CLUB on male cosmetics

Disputed mark was applied for registration on January 7, 2016, registered on June 17, 2016 without receiving any office action from the Japan Patent Office (JPO) examiner.

On April 5, 2017, plaintiff demanded for a trial to invalidate disputed mark in violation of Article 4(1)(xv) and (xix) of the Trademark Law by citing MEN’S CLUB brand men’s fashion magazines used by plaintiff.

The Trial Board of JPO decided that disputed mark shall neither fall under Article 4(1)(xv) nor 4(1)(xix), and dismissed the invalidation petition entirely [case no. 2016-890063].

In the lawsuit, plaintiff argued the Board misconstrued Article 4(1)(xv), thus erred in judgment to apply the article on the case.

Article 4(1)(xv)

Article 4(1)(xv) of the Trademark Law provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with the goods or services pertaining to a business of another entity.

Theoretically, Article 4(1)(xv) is applicable to the case where a mark in question designates remotely associated or dissimilar goods or services with that of a well-known brand business.

IP High Court decision

The IP High Court ruled that the Board erred in applying Article 4(1)(xv) based on following reasons.

  • Both marks, consisting of MEN’S CLUB, are almost identical
  • MEN’S CLUB brand men’s fashion magazine has acquired a high degree of popularity and reputation among relevant consumers as a result of substantial use over decades, notwithstanding lack of creativity in the mark
  • Male cosmetics are considerably associated with men’s fashion magazines since they are often featured in men’s fashion magazines
  • Consumers of men’s fashion magazines are likely to consume male cosmetics

Based on the foregoing and the degree of ordinary care taken by relevant consumers, the court concluded that consumers of male cosmetics would conceive the MEN’S CLUB brand men’s fashion magazine and then associate the cosmetics with goods produced by plaintiff or a business entity who has systematical or economical connection with plaintiff in error.

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

 

 

It is just a 3D shape of electronic baccarat shoe, or trademark?

In a lawsuit disputing adequacy of decision by the JPO Appeal Board (Appeal case no. 2015-907) to refuse the applied 3D mark (TM2014-5943, class 28), consisting of a three-dimensional shape of electronic baccarat shoe with the program enabling to reduce the chance of foreign cards and eliminate dealer mistakes, due to lack of  distinctiveness and secondary meaning, the IP High Court sustained the decision being appealed.
[Case no. Heisei28(Gyo-ke)10266,  Decision date: September 27, 2017]

Inherent distinctiveness of the 3D shape

Plaintiff, a Japanese manufacturer and distributor of the ANGEL EYE electronic baccarat shoe, asserted that the 3D shape of ANGEL EYE, being the first products in the industry, is not an essential shape to make it free for public use since no competitors have dealt with same type of product other than plaintiff so far. Besides, a fact that the 3D shape has been registered in the legal gambling countries, e.g. US, EU, AU, RU, Malaysia and NZ, will rather bolster necessity to allow exclusive right on the shape.

However, the Court opposed to plaintiff. “It is inadequate to allow plaintiff to use the 3D shape exclusively. Applied 3D mark can be perceived objectively as a general shape of electronic baccarat shoe aimed to fulfill its original function and produce aesthetic image. If so, it may disorder a fair marketplace to allow exclusive use to plaintiff just because of a first-to-file. A mere fact of trademark registrations in countries where the ANGEL EYE has been distributed is insufficient to admit trademark registration in our nation since the goods is yet to be distributed in Japan.” Accordingly, the Court refused Applied 3D mark based on Article 3(1)(iii).

 

Secondary meaning of Applied 3D mark

Plaintiff argued Applied 3D mark has already served to function as a source indicator by means of substantial use of the mark sine 2005. Plaintiff exported 11,481 units (sale proceeds: 2.7 billion yen) over the lase decade and has achieved 90 % market share in Macau, the world’s largest casino gambling hub.

In this respect, the Court ruled in favor of the JPO. As plaintiff admits, the shoe has not been manufactured for domestic use. Any evidence suggesting a high degree of recognition to Applied 3D mark in foreign countries is neither relevant nor persuasive. Unless plaintiff demonstrates that domestic consumers have become aware of such recognition, it is groundless to find Applied 3D mark would satisfy requisite of secondary meaning based on Article 3(2) of the Japan Trademark Law.


The case raises a question: What is a role of the Trademark Law where applied mark, being registered in foreign nations,  confronts with an insuperable refusal attributable to legal restrictions on domestic use of the mark?
Unsuccessful domestic registration prevents domestic company from utilizing the Madrid Protocol and protecting his/her vital brands on the global market in an effective and economical manner.  

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

IP High Court ruled trademark “SeaGull-LC” is deemed similar to “SEAGULL”

In a dispute regarding similarity between trademark “SeaGull-LC” and “SEAGULL”, the  IP High Court took the side of original decision rendered by the Japan Patent Office on the following ground.

The term of “SeaGull”, giving rise to a meaning of a gull frequenting the sea and a pronunciation of “siːɡʌl”, is evidently distinctive as a source indicator in relation to the designated goods. In the meantime, a term of “LC” in itself does not have any specific meaning in English or other foreign languages. It becomes common in trade to use two alphabetical letters accompanying a brand name on goods with an intention to represent a model or series of the brand. If so, “LC” lacks inherent distinctiveness as a source indicator of designated goods as long as relevant traders and consumers perceive the term to indicate a model or standards of the goods.

In appearance of the applied mark, “SeaGull” and “LC” can be seen separately by means of hyphen. Hyphen in itself does not serve to fuction as a source indicator. It just connects two words to constitute new term as a whole, or separates a composing element of compound word to make it more visible. Since each connected word is respectively distinguishable in the aspect of linguistics, it should be allowed to extract such word connected by hyphen independently. Thus, it is admissible to consider the term “SeaGull” as the dominant portion of applied mark and compare the portion with senior trademark registration in the assessment of trademark similarity.  Accordingly, applied mark gives rise to a meaning of a gull frequenting the sea and a pronunciation of “siːɡʌl”  from the dominant portion as well as “siːɡʌl-el-siː” from its entirety.

In the assessment of trademark similarity, commercial practice can be duly taken into consideration where it reflects regular and constant circumstances relating to the disputed goods in general. Mere commercial facts involving specific goods with disputed mark are insufficient in this regard. Sales record and publicity of trademark “SeaGull-LC” should not be considered in the assessment of trademark similarity due to the above mentioned reason.

As a conclusion, the Court found a likelihood of confusion between “SeaGull-LC” and “SEAGULL”.
[IP High Court Heisei28(Gyo-Ke)10270, June 28, 2017]

It is worthy to note that the Court considered “hyphen” functions to separate a mark in the assessment of trademark similarity regardless of its actual function to connect words. It is advisable to investigate trademark registration consisting of each word when choosing a trademark including hyphen between word elements.

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

 

 

The IP High Court ruled registered mark “KIRIN” is used independently regardless of promotional campaign named as “KIRIN Plus-i”

On November 7, 2016, the IP High Court ruled to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal in favor of an owner of famous beverage brand “KIRIN”, Kirin Company Limited, and concluded that the company has used registered mark “KIRIN” in dispute via a group company of KIRIN Holdings [Heisei28 (Gyo-Ke) 10093].

Doctrine of file wrapper estoppel 

In a non-use cancellation lawsuit, plaintiff alleged Kirin Co. violated doctrine of file wrapper estoppel by citing the facts that Kirin Co. has advertised health-conscious food products and beverages under the name of “KIRIN Plus-i”. In the meantime, Kirin Co. asserted registered mark “KIRIN” is used independently in configuration of the “KIRIN Plus-i” logo during a cancellation trial.

 kirin

The IP High Court denied plaintiff’s allegation on the grounds that the mark “KIRIN” has been used and become famous in itself as a source indicator of Kirin Group so long.

Thus, promotional campaign named “KIRIN Plus-i” for health-conscious food products and beverages shall not be deemed inconsistent with any assertion made by Kirin Co. at cancellation trial.

Combination mark

Plaintiff also alleged Kirin Co. uses a word mark “KIRIN” combining with the “Plus-i” logo on goods in dispute since “KIRIN Plus-i” is just used on specific food products and beverages for health-conscious consumers.

The IP High Court denied the allegation as well.

By taking into consideration of remarkable prestige of the mark “KIRIN” and visual distinction between “KIRIN” and “Plus-i” in appearance, it is reasonable to consider the portion of “KIRIN” in itself functions as a source indicator independently.

“AQUA COLLAGEN GEL” is not a descriptive term, but a source indicator by means of acquired distinctiveness.

On October 27, 2016, the IP High Court ruled to uphold a decision by JPO declaring cancellation of opposed mark “ Dr.Coo / AQUA COLLAGEN GEL” due to conflict with senior registrations containing a term of “Aqua-Collagen-Gel” (Case no. Heisei 28 (Gyo-ke) 10090).

JPO declared cancellation of the opposed mark “Dr.Coo / AQUA COLLAGEN GEL” (see below) covering goods of “Collagen gel cosmetics; collagen gel soaps” in class 3 on the grounds that the mark is confusingly similar to senior trademark registrations cited by an opponent, an owner of Dr. Ci:Labo brand.

 aqua-collagen-gel

Applicant of the opposed mark filed a lawsuit against the decision to the IP High Court. In the lawsuit, applicant alleged that it was JPO’s error to have considered “AUQ COLLAGEN GEL” as a distinctive term in relation to the designated goods of class 3 since the term merely describes quality or material of goods in dispute and thus it can’t even take a role of source indicator.

 

In view of material facts that an opponent has consecutively used the term “Aqua-Collagen-Gel” on cosmetics since 1999, cumulative quantity of the cosmetics amounts to 30 million by the year 2015, recent annual sale of the cosmetics exceeds 12 billion JP Yen and frequent TV advertisement and publications, the IP High Court admitted the term “Aqua-Collagen-Gel” has independently served function as a source indicator of the opponent even if opponent’s cosmetics depict so-called house mark “Dr. Ci:Labo” adjacent to Aqua-Collagen-Gel”.

Based on above findings, the Court dismissed applicant’s argument to insist dissimilarity of both marks on the grounds that average consumers are likely to pay attention to a term “AQUA COLLAGEN GEL” in configuration of the opposed mark and consequently associate the term with opponent products irrespective of existence of “Dr.Coo”.

Can shape of goods be protected under the Unfair Competition Prevention Law?

Imitation of training chopsticks

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendant to cease to manufacture and distribute defendant’s training chopsticks in the name of “Deluxe Training Chopsticks” by alleging it constitutes confusion with, or imitation of plaintiff’s well-known training chopsticks in the name of “Edison Chopsticks” based on violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law.

chopsticks

 The IP High Court decision

In a dispute of imitation of training chopsticks, the IP High Court admitted Article 2(1)(i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law is interpreted to include shape of goods in the meaning of “another person’s goods or business by use of an indication of goods, etc. (which shall mean a name, trade name, trademark, mark, container or package, or any other indication of goods or trade pertaining to a person’s business)”, provided that the shape has acquired “secondary meaning” as a consequence of substantial use even if it is not aimed to serve as a source indicator.

 Article 2(1)(i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law

Article 2

(1) The term “unfair competition” as used in this Act shall mean any of the following:

(i) creation of confusion with another person’s goods or business by use of an indication of goods, etc. (which shall mean a name, trade name, trademark, mark, container or package, or any other indication of goods or trade pertaining to a person’s business; the same shall apply hereinafter) that is identical or similar to an indication of goods, etc. well-known among consumers used by said person, or assignment, delivery, display for the purpose of assignment or delivery, export, import or provision through a telecommunications line of goods bearing the such an indication of goods, etc.;

Secondary meaning for shape of goods

Besides, in the assessment of secondary meaning, the shape is required:

(1)   To contain a distinctive character distinguishable from other similar goods objectively, and

(2)   To be exclusively used by specific entity for a long period of time or published for advertisement extensively, and thus the goods gets known for a source indicator of the entity among relevant consumers

It should be noted that where the shape simply results from technical function and utility of the goods and leaves no other option to adopt an alternative configuration, such shape should not be protected under Article 2(1)(i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law.

In the meantime, where the shape leaves other option to adopt an alternative configuration, Article 2(1)(i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law is applicable on the condition that the shape meet above requirements, namely (1) distinctive character and (2) well-knownness.

 

Conclusion

Based on above rules, the IP High Court found that the shape of plaintiff’s Edison chopsticks evidently derives from technical function and utility since it serves directly for consumers to learn how to use chopsticks in a correct manner.

The IP High Court admitted the shape leaves other potion to adopt an alternative configuration, however, denied plaintiff’s argument in view of lack of distinctive character since Edison chopsticks consists of a common configuration with equivalent goods. (Heisei 28 Ne 10028 ruled on July 27, 2016)