À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Respect de la propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé Outils et services en matière d’intelligence artificielle L’Organisation Travailler à l’OMPI Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Avenir de la propriété intellectuelle Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Application des droits de propriété intellectuelle WIPO ALERT Sensibilisation Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Jeunesse Examinateurs Écosystèmes d’innovation Économie Financement Actifs incorporels Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme Musique Mode PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Données essentielles sur l’investissement incorporel dans le monde Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions WIPO Webcast Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Fonds de reconstruction Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Assistant de classification États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Postes de fonctionnaires Postes de personnel affilié Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

Japon

JP098-j

Retour

1967(Gyo-Tsu)32, Minshu Vol.22, No.2, at 159

Date of Judgment: February 9, 1968

 

Issuing Authority: Supreme Court

 

Level of the Issuing Authority: Final Instance

 

Type of Procedure: Judicial (Administrative)

 

Subject Matter: Trademarks

 

Main text of the judgment (decision):

1.  The final appeal shall be dismissed.

2.  Appellant shall bear the cost of the final appeal.

 

Reasons:

Regarding Reason 1 for the final appeal according to Appellant's attorney, ●●●●.

 In sum, the gist of the argument is that the judgment in prior instance is illegal due to the failure to conduct an examination sua sponte on whether or not Appellee is an interested party who is able to request for a trial for cancellation of the Registered Trademark.

 However, it was acknowledged in the judgment in prior instance that Appellee constitutes an interested party under the former Trademark Act (Act No. 99 of 1921; the same applies hereinafter), and given that it is clear from records that the parties did not argue over this point in the trial of the prior instance, it cannot be considered, although the court of prior instance did not clearly make a judgment regarding the above point, that the court failed to conduct an examination. The gist of the argument cannot be accepted.

Regarding Reason 2 for the final appeal.

 The gist of the argument is that, although the evidence clearly indicates that the Registered Trademark is shown on Appellant Company's writing paper and envelopes, the use of the Registered Trademark was not acknowledged as a fact in the trial of the prior instance, and that this is a result of incorrect interpretation about trademark use and is against the empirical rule and the rule of making a determination based on reasonable evaluation of evidence, thereby constituting the illegality of the failure to exercise the authority to ask for explanation.

 However, in order to constitute trademark use, while it is not always necessary for the trademark to be used for the designated goods per se by being affixed therewith, it is reasonable to interpret that the trademark must be used specifically in relation to those goods. Next, even with regard to a transaction document which indicates a trademark, there is no empirical rule according to which it is presumed that the document is always used specifically in relation to designated goods as per the asserted opinion, and it must be said that this fact is something with regard to which the relevant party must make an assertion and submit evidence without waiting for the court's exercising of the authority to ask for explanation.

 According to the facts having been confirmed in the judgment in prior instance, the writing paper according to the asserted opinion was used only for notifying Appellant Company's directors about the calling of board of directors meetings and for notifying shareholders about extraordinary general meetings, and the envelopes according to the asserted opinion are unused, and there is no sufficient evidence to otherwise acknowledge that these documents were used specifically in relation to goods such as "Sauce", which is among the designated goods for the Registered Trademark, so that in the end, even with all the evidence shown in the lawsuit of the present case, it cannot be acknowledged as a fact that Appellant used the Registered Trademark after 1953.

 In that case, the aforementioned determination made in the prior instance is reasonable and has no illegality in regards to the asserted opinion, so that the gist of the argument is utterly unacceptable.

Regarding Reasons 3 and 4 for the final appeal.

 In sum, the gist of the argument is that the judgment in prior instance, which was rendered to the effect that there was no use of the Registered Trademark, is illegal on the grounds of an omission involving a determination, inadequacy of reasons, discrepancy in reasons, breach of the empirical rule, and inexhaustive examination.

 However, although the reason for adopting the Registered Trademark for use lies with characters, "青星", these characters have been modified and designed so much so that a person looking at them would agree that there are said characters only after being explained as such and observing the characters in detail, and this is as per the confirmation made in the judgment in prior instance, so that it should be said that the Registered Trademark has particular distinctiveness as a trademark because of this unique shape. Accordingly, upon determining whether or not Registered Trademark was used, the determination should be made based not just on the pronunciation or concept produced from the trademark, but also on the use of the aforementioned unique shape or at least a shape which would be considered the same as the aforementioned unique shape in transactions. In addition, in the case of an "associated trademark" according to the proviso of Article 14, paragraph (1) of the former Trademark Act, it is not enough for the trademark pertaining to the use to be merely similar to the registered trademark to be examined in the trial, but the trademark must have been registered as an associated trademark of the registered trademark, and this is evident in light of the provisions of Article 3 of the same Act. However, according to the facts confirmed in the judgment in prior instance , the trademark pertaining to the use as per the asserted opinion is not the one which was registered as an associated trademark of the Registered Trademark, and this is something which Appellant agrees and does not argue against, and there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Registered Trademark was used in the aforementioned unique shape or in a shape which would be considered the same as the aforementioned unique shape in transactions. Accordingly, even if the Registered Trademark produces the pronunciation or concept as per the asserted opinion, and even if the trademark pertaining to the use as per the asserted opinion is similar to the Registered Trademark, these factors should not have any influence on the determination made in the prior instance to the effect that Appellant failed to use the Registered Trademark for three consecutive years following 1953 without just cause, and it also cannot be found that there is illegality as per the asserted opinion with regard to the process of making the determination.

In that case, the gist of the argument is groundless, and reversal of the judgment is unavoidable.

Therefore, the judgment of this court is rendered unanimously by all judges, as per the main text, by application of Articles 401, 95, and 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(This translation is provisional and subject to revision.)