[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…
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|
[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
[Title of the patent] “ANTIGEN-BINDING MOLECULE CAPABLE OF BINDING TO TWO OR MORE ANTIGEN MOLECULES REPEATEDLY”
[Key issue] Enablement requirement (Article 36, paragraph (4), item (i) of the Patent Act)
Court stated in the decision that “it cannot be said that the Detailed Description of the Invention provides a description to the extent that allows a person ordinarily skilled in the art to implement the whole range of pharmaceutical composition encompassed by the invention.”Source IPHC
[Title of the patent] “ANTIGEN BINDING PROTEINS TO PROPROTEIN CONVERTASE SUBTILISIN KEXIN TYPE 9 (PCSK9)”
[Key issue] Inventive step, support requirement and enablement requirement (Article 29, paragraph (2); Article 36, paragraph (4), item (i); and Article 36, paragraph (6), item (i) of the Patent Act)
Regarding the support requirement issue, Court stated in the decision “A person ordinarily skilled in the art who read the description could recognize that various neutralizing antibodies competing with the reference antibody included in the scope of the claims of the Corrected Invention 1 (Claim 1) other than neutralizing antibodies competing with the reference antibody in the description might be obtained by repetitively implementing the production and selection of immunized mouse in accordance with a procedure and a schedule of immunization program in the description, the hybridoma generation in which a selected immunized mouse is used, and a screening and an epitope binning assay for identifying an antibody that strongly blocks a binding interaction between PCSK9 and LDLR in the description from the start. Therefore, it is recognized that Corrected Invention 1 (Claim 1) conforms to the support requirement.” and maintained the patent.Source IPHC
Confirmation of the non-existence of right to demand compensation for damages based on patent right
[Key issue] International jurisdiction and benefit of action (Article 3-2, paragraph (3), Article 3-3, item (viii), Article 3-6, Article 3-9, Article 38, first half of the Code of Civil Procedure)
A case in which, with regard to a claim for confirmation of the non-existence of right to demand compensation for damage based on a patent right between the parties concerned including foreign corporations among both the appellants/appellees, the jurisdiction of the Japanese courts is acknowledged and then, the action was dismissed since the change of the action of adding the product to be the target of the action is not allowed, and the action lacks benefit of action and is illegal.Source IPHC