Propiedad intelectual Formación en PI Respeto por la PI Divulgación de la PI La PI para... La PI y… La PI en… Información sobre patentes y tecnología Información sobre marcas Información sobre diseños industriales Información sobre las indicaciones geográficas Información sobre las variedades vegetales (UPOV) Leyes, tratados y sentencias de PI Recursos de PI Informes sobre PI Protección por patente Protección de las marcas Protección de diseños industriales Protección de las indicaciones geográficas Protección de las variedades vegetales (UPOV) Solución de controversias en materia de PI Soluciones operativas para las oficinas de PI Pagar por servicios de PI Negociación y toma de decisiones Cooperación para el desarrollo Apoyo a la innovación Colaboraciones público-privadas Herramientas y servicios de IA La Organización Trabajar con la OMPI Rendición de cuentas Patentes Marcas Diseños industriales Indicaciones geográficas Derecho de autor Secretos comerciales Academia de la OMPI Talleres y seminarios Observancia de la PI WIPO ALERT Sensibilizar Día Mundial de la PI Revista de la OMPI Casos prácticos y casos de éxito Novedades sobre la PI Premios de la OMPI Empresas Universidades Pueblos indígenas Judicatura Recursos genéticos, conocimientos tradicionales y expresiones culturales tradicionales Economía Financiación Activos intangibles Igualdad de género Salud mundial Cambio climático Política de competencia Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible Tecnologías de vanguardia Aplicaciones móviles Deportes Turismo PATENTSCOPE Análisis de patentes Clasificación Internacional de Patentes ARDI - Investigación para la innovación ASPI - Información especializada sobre patentes Base Mundial de Datos sobre Marcas Madrid Monitor Base de datos Artículo 6ter Express Clasificación de Niza Clasificación de Viena Base Mundial de Datos sobre Dibujos y Modelos Boletín de Dibujos y Modelos Internacionales Base de datos Hague Express Clasificación de Locarno Base de datos Lisbon Express Base Mundial de Datos sobre Marcas para indicaciones geográficas Base de datos de variedades vegetales PLUTO Base de datos GENIE Tratados administrados por la OMPI WIPO Lex: leyes, tratados y sentencias de PI Normas técnicas de la OMPI Estadísticas de PI WIPO Pearl (terminología) Publicaciones de la OMPI Perfiles nacionales sobre PI Centro de Conocimiento de la OMPI Informes de la OMPI sobre tendencias tecnológicas Índice Mundial de Innovación Informe mundial sobre la propiedad intelectual PCT - El sistema internacional de patentes ePCT Budapest - El Sistema internacional de depósito de microorganismos Madrid - El sistema internacional de marcas eMadrid Artículo 6ter (escudos de armas, banderas, emblemas de Estado) La Haya - Sistema internacional de diseños eHague Lisboa - Sistema internacional de indicaciones geográficas eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediación Arbitraje Determinación de expertos Disputas sobre nombres de dominio Acceso centralizado a la búsqueda y el examen (CASE) Servicio de acceso digital (DAS) WIPO Pay Cuenta corriente en la OMPI Asambleas de la OMPI Comités permanentes Calendario de reuniones WIPO Webcast Documentos oficiales de la OMPI Agenda para el Desarrollo Asistencia técnica Instituciones de formación en PI Apoyo para COVID-19 Estrategias nacionales de PI Asesoramiento sobre políticas y legislación Centro de cooperación Centros de apoyo a la tecnología y la innovación (CATI) Transferencia de tecnología Programa de Asistencia a los Inventores (PAI) WIPO GREEN PAT-INFORMED de la OMPI Consorcio de Libros Accesibles Consorcio de la OMPI para los Creadores WIPO Translate Conversión de voz a texto Asistente de clasificación Estados miembros Observadores Director general Actividades por unidad Oficinas en el exterior Ofertas de empleo Adquisiciones Resultados y presupuesto Información financiera Supervisión
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Leyes Tratados Sentencias Consultar por jurisdicción

Japón

JP026-j

Atrás

2003 (Gyo-Hi) 353, Shumin No.217, at 317

Date of Judgment: July 11, 2005

 

Issuing Authority: Supreme Court

 

Level of the Issuing Authority: Final Instance

 

Type of Procedure: JudicialAdministrative

 

Subject Matter: Trademarks

 

Main text of the judgment (decision):

 

1. The present final appeal shall be dismissed.

 

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

 

 

Reasons:

 

Reason of the second petition for acceptance of final appeal by the attorneys of the final appeal, ●●●● and ●●●●

   1. The outline of factual relations legally finalized in the court of prior instance is as follows.

   (1) Appellant of final appeal is the holder of a trademark right of the registered trademark with Registration No. 2357409 (trademark registration filed on July 31, 1978, establishment of the trademark right registered on November 29, 1991, hereinafter, the trademark shall be referred to as the "present trademark", and the trademark registration as the "present trademark registration") consisting of laterally written European characters of "RUDOLPH VALENTINO" with the designated goods in Class 17 "clothes (excluding special clothes for exercise), fabric belongings (excluding those belonging to the other classes), bedclothes (excluding beds)" in the attachment to the Ordinance of the Trademark Act (before revision by Ordinance No. 299 of 1991).

   (2) Appellee made a request for an invalidation trial of the present trademark registration on November 28, 1996 (hereinafter, this request is referred to as the "present request for trial").  The written request for trial submitted by Appellee on the same date (hereinafter, referred to as the "present written request") described as the grounds for the request that the present trademark registration was made in violation of the provisions of Article 4, paragraph (1), item (xv) (hereinafter, referred to simply as "item (xv)") of the Trademark Act (before revision by Act No. 65 of 1991) and thus, it should be invalidated pursuant to the provisions in Article 46, paragraph (1) of the same Act, and the detailed grounds would be supplemented later.  The present request for trial was made immediately before expiration of the period of exclusion prescribed in Article 47 (hereinafter, referred to simply as "Article 47") of the Trademark Act (before revision by Act No. 68 of 1996) of the present trademark registration.

   The present request for trial was examined at the Japan Patent Office as the case of Trial No. 20103 of 1996.  The chief administrative judge in charge of this case ordered Appellee to submit a document describing the grounds for the request within 30 days from the date of dispatch by the "written order of procedural amendment (format)" dispatched on January 24, 1997.

   Appellee submitted the document on February 18 of the same year, describing as the grounds for the request that each of the trademarks "VALENTINO GARAVANI" and "VALENTINO" used by Appellee for clothes for men and women had become well-known before the date of filing the trademark registration of the present trademark and thus, if Appellant uses the present trademark for the designated goods, it would misleadingly indicate the goods as those relating to the business operation of Appellee and there is a concern that a place of origin of the goods would be confused.

   Appellant asserted that, as the grounds for the request in the written request for trial submitted before lapse of the period of exclusion, if only the applicable provisions are described, even if the document describing the specific grounds for the request is submitted after the lapse thereof, it does not mean that the request for trial was made before lapse of the period of exclusion and thus, the present request for trial should be dismissed as unlawful.

   (3) Regarding the present request for trial, the decision that the present trademark registration should be invalidated (hereinafter, referred to as the "present JPO decision") was made on June 14, 2002.  Regarding the aforementioned assertion by Appellant related to the period of exclusion, on the grounds that the applicable provisions are explicitly indicated as the reasons for invalidation in the present written request and also, that the document describing the specific grounds was submitted within the period for which the amendment was ordered, it was judged that the present request for trial is not an unlawful one which did not observe the period of exclusion.

 

   2. This case is a lawsuit in which Appellant asserts that the present JPO decision has an error in interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 47 and the like and seeks rescission thereof.

 

   3. The court of prior instance judged that the present written request has only description that the present trademark registration violates the provisions in item (xv) and does not describe assertion of the facts constituting the specific invalidation reasons, but in view of the circumstances that the indications such as "VALENTINO", "barentino (Japanese)" used by Appellee for the goods relating to the business operation thereof are well-known to the dealers and consumers in the fashion-related field of our country, that the word "barentino" is included in the name of the demandant (Appellee) described in the present written request and the like, it can be deemed that the present written request has description of the invalidation reasons that the present trademark is a trademark which is likely to cause confusion in relation with the aforementioned indication by Appellee and thus, it was judged that the present request for trial is not an unlawful one that did not observe the period of exclusion.

 

   4. Article 47 prescribes that the invalidation trial of the trademark registration on the ground of violation of the item (xv) should be requested within the period of exclusion of 5 years from the date of registration of establishment of the trademark right.  The purpose thereof is interpreted such that the trademark registration violating the provisions in the item (xv) should be invalidated, but if the period of exclusion has elapsed without request for the invalidation trial of the trademark registration, validity of the trademark registration is made undisputable in order to protect an existing continuous state generated by the trademark registration.  In view of the purpose of the provisions described above, such trademark may not have been granted trademark registration and thus, there is no strong demand for protection of the holder of a trademark right by ensuring the validity thereof at an early stage.  And it can be considered that the existing continuous state is overcome as long as the invalidation trial of the trademark registration was requested within the period of exclusion, and the written request for trial has description that the trademark registration violates the provisions in item (xv).

   Then, in order to assert that the request for invalidation trial of the trademark registration on the ground of violation of item (xv) observes the period of exclusion, it is only necessary that the written request for trial submitted within the period of exclusion has the description as the grounds for the request that the trademark registration concerned violates the provisions of the item (xv), and it is reasonable to interpret that description of the assertion relating to the specific factual relations which should be applicable to the provisions of the item (xv) is not required.

   By examining this for this case, according to the aforementioned factual relations, it is obvious that the present request for trial observes the period of exclusion, and there are no errors in interpretation and application of Article 47 in the present JPO decision.  The aforementioned judgment of the court of prior instance that the present request for trial is not unlawful can be accepted as a conclusion.  The gist cannot be employed.

   Therefore, the judgment shall be rendered as in the main text unanimously by all the judges.

 

 (This translation is provisional and subject to revision.)