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 industriels 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 industriels 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 avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires 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 Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Financement Actifs incorporels Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme 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 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 UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 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 Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 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 Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

Japon

JP032-j

Retour

2003 (Gyo-Hi) 265

Date of Judgment: June 8, 2004

 

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:

 

Reasons of petition for a final appeal by the attorney of the final appeal, ●●●●

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

   (1) Appellant of final appeal filed an application of trademark registration (hereinafter, referred to as the "present application") on October 22, 1998, with the goods in Class 14, Class 18, and Class 25 in No. 1 of the attachment of the Ordinance of the Trademark Act (before revision by Ordinance No. 265 of 2001) described in the decision attached to the judgment in prior instance as the designated goods for the trademark constituted of laterally written European characters "LEONARD KAMHOUT" (hereinafter, referred to as the "trademark of the present application").

   (2) The present application trademark is a trademark made of the name D, who is an embosser in the U.S. and a designer of silver accessories (hereinafter, referred to as "D").

   At the time of filing of this case, a document indicating D's approval was not submitted, but Appellant submitted the written amendment of procedures with the contents of the amendment that "the written consent and the translation thereof shall be submitted as attached" to the Japan Patent Office on January 26, 1999.  The written consent prepared by D as of December 1, 1998 attached to that has recitation that the consent was given to registration of the trademark by Appellant on the ground of the present application.

   D submitted the written submission of publication and the like stating the submitted publication as "the copy of the notice of withdrawal of the written consent and the translation thereof" to the Japan Patent Office on May 25, 2000.  This document has recitation that D sent the notice of withdrawal as of the 24th day of the same month to Appellant and withdrew the consent by the aforementioned written consent, and the copy of the notice of withdrawal is attached.

   (3) Regarding the present application, the examiner's decision of refusal was made on the ground that the trademark of the present application falls under Article 4, paragraph (1), item (viii) of the Trademark Act (hereinafter, referred to simply as "item (viii)".).  Appellant made a request for an Appeal against the Examiner's Decision of Refusal, and as the result of examination of this request for an appeal as the Appeal against Examiner's Decision No. 2000-20761 of the Japan Patent Office, the decision was made that Appellant's request for an appeal is dismissed, on March 14, 2003.

 

   2. This case is a lawsuit that Appellant asserted that the aforementioned JPO decision has errors in interpretation application of the item (viii) and Article 4, paragraph (3) of the Trademark Act (hereinafter, referred to simply as the "paragraph (3)") and sought rescission thereof.

 

   3. Item (viii) is the provision that no trademark may be registered if the trademark contains the portrait of another person, or the name of another person, or a well-known abbreviation thereof listed in the part other than those in the parentheses (hereinafter, referred to as the "main text of the item (viii)" for convenience), except those the registration of which has been approved by the person concerned as stipulated in the parentheses.  The purpose thereof is interpreted to protect personal interests of another person related to the portrait, name, and the like.  Therefore, those who desire to have a trademark to be registered for the trademark applicable to the main text of the item (viii) should ensure the approval by another person concerned by taking their own responsibility so as not to harm personal interests of the other person.

   Moreover, paragraph (3) prescribes that, even in the case of the trademark applicable to the item (viii), those not applicable to the item (viii) at the time of filing of the trademark registration (hereinafter, referred to as the "time of filing"), the provisions in the item (viii) shall not be applied.  This is considered to be because, on the premise that a reference time to determine whether it falls under a trademark that may not be registered prescribed in Article 4, paragraph (1), each item of the Trademark Act is the time of decision of trademark registration or decision of refusal in principle (in the case where an appeal against the decision of refusal is requested, at the time of the decision to that; hereinafter, collectively referred to as the "time of decision"), regarding the trademark which did not fall under the trademark containing the portrait of another person, the name of another person, a well-known abbreviation thereof, and the like and was not applicable to the main text of the item (viii), if the trademark is found to become applicable to the main text of the item (viii), since objective circumstances that the applicant cannot be involved such that another person with the identical name as the filed trademark appeared or the abbreviation of the name of another person became well-known by the time of decision after that, it is not reasonable that the applicant may not have the trademark registered and thus, the trademark registration should be approved in such a case as the purpose of the provision.

   In view of the purposes of the item (viii) and the paragraph (3), the trademark not applicable to the item (viii) at the time of filing referred to in the paragraph (3) should be interpreted to refer to the trademark not applicable to the main text of item (viii) at the time of filing, and regarding the trademark which is applicable to the main text of item (viii) at the time of filing but is deemed not to be applicable to item (viii) since there is approval in the parenthesis in item (viii) should be considered not to be applicable to the provisions in paragraph (3).  Therefore, [gist] in order to register the trademark for the trademark applicable to the main text of item (viii) at the time of filing, approval in the parentheses of item (viii) is required at the time of decision, and even if there was the aforementioned approval at the time of filing, in the case of lack of it at the time of decision, it is reasonable to interpret that the trademark may not be registered.

   By examining this for the present case, according to the aforementioned factual relationships, the trademark of the present application is applicable to the main text of item (viii) at the time of filing, and it is obvious that Appellant did not have D's approval for the trademark registration for the trademark of the present application at the time of decision and thus, the present application should be refused on the ground that the trademark of the present application is applicable to item (viii).

 

   4. According to the above, the judgment of the court of prior instance can be accepted as reasonable.  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.)