Date of
Judgment: November 12, 1982
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 No. 1 for the final
appeal according to the attorneys representing Appellant, namely; ●●●●, ●●●●, ●●●●, ●●●●,
and ●●●●.
A company's trade name constitutes a
"name of another person" as stipulated in Article 4, paragraph (1),
item (viii) of the Trademark Act , and the part which consists of a company's
trade name minus the characters of "株式会社"
[literally meaning "stock company", often affixed to a company name]
should be interpreted as falling under an "abbreviation of another
person's name" as stipulated in the same item. If an applied trademark
contains an abbreviation consisting of the trade name of a company, which is
another person, minus the characters of " 株式会社", it is reasonable to interpret that the trademark cannot be granted
registration only when the above abbreviation is "well known" as an
indication for the company, which is another person. The trademark of
"A", for which Appellee was granted registration, is the same as the
part, which consists of Appellant's trade name, "株式会社A", minus the characters of "株式会社",
and is no other than a trademark consisting of an abbreviation of another
person's name, so that it should be said that the only case in which Appellee
cannot be granted registration for the trademark is limited to the case where
"A" is well known as an indication for Appellant. The judgment of the
court of prior instance, whose purport is the same as above, can be approved as
justifiable, and there is no illegality with the process, as per the asserted
opinion. The legal precedent from Daishin-in [the predecessor of the Supreme
Court of Japan], which was cited in the asserted opinion, only goes so far as
to stipulate that a "trademark containing another person's trade
name" cannot be granted registration, and is a legal precedent which is
based on the former Trademark Act (Act No. 99 of 1921) in which there was no
provision as to a trademark containing an abbreviation of another person's
trade name, so that the legal precedent is not appropriate for the present
case.
The gist of the argument cannot be
accepted.
Regarding Reason No. 2 for the final
appeal.
Under the fact situation which was
lawfully confirmed in the trial of the prior
instance, the judgment of the court of
prior instance to the effect that "A" does not fall under a
"well-known abbreviation of another person's name" as stipulated in
Article 4, paragraph (1), item (viii) of the Trademark Act can be approved as
justifiable, and there is no illegality with the process as per the asserted
opinion. The gist of the argument cannot be accepted.
Regarding Reasons No. 3 and No. 4 for
the final appeal.
The judgment of the court of prior
instance to the effect that the fact finding of the court of prior instance
concerning the points of the asserted opinion can be
sufficiently affirmed in light of the
evidence listed in the judgment in prior instance and that, under the fact
situation described above, it cannot be said that the Trademark was registered
in violation of Article 4, paragraph (1), items (xv) and (xvi) of the Trademark
Act, can be approved as justifiable, and there is no illegality with the
process as per the asserted opinion. The gist of the argument cannot be
accepted in either case.
Therefore, the judgment of this court
is rendered unanimously by all judges, as per the main text, by application of
Article 7 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act and Articles 401, 95, and
89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(This translation is
provisional and subject to revision.)