IP Updates


[Suit against Invalidation Appeal Decision of Trademark Application]

[Key issue] “Likely to cause confusion” (Article 4, paragraph (1), item (xv) of the Trademark Act).

Trademark at issue Cited Trademark

Considering the following facts, Court concluded that the Trademark “is likely to cause confusion”:
While the Trademark and the Cited Trademark are different in silhouette, and because of the presence or lack of a design that is outlined by a white line inside, and other features, the two trademarks are similar in the entire silhouette.
The Cited Trademark has become a well-known trademark that is widely recognized by traders and consumers in Japan as a trademark indicating clothing, caps, hats, and the like of the brand, “PUMA”, pertaining to the plaintiff’s business.
While the designated goods of the Trademark are “tee-shirts; headgear for wear”, the brand, “PUMA”, also covers products of T-shirts, caps, and hats…

Source IPHC

JPO produced an English brochure explaining the most recent revision of the Design Act.

Source JPO

[Suit against Appeal Decision on Refusal of Design Patent Application]

A case in which, with regard to the design according to a body of an electric toothbrush, the constitution of the entirety and the constitution of the shaft portion create a common aesthetic impression as a whole, in which an impression received from the different point that two buttons for controlling operation are disposed vertically on a front surface of the body grasping portion in the design of the present application, whereas in the cited design, one is disposed, does not exceed the impression received from the common point, and it is judged that the design of the present application is similar to the cited design.

Drawing of design at issue Drawing of cited design
Source IPHC

[Title of the patent] “Carbon dioxide-containing viscous composition”

[Key issue] Criteria for deciding the amount of damage compensation (Article 102, paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Patent Act)

A recent IPHC Ground Panel judgment delivered on June 7, 2019.

Source IPHC