关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

日本

JP040-j

返回

2001 (Gyo-Hi) 12, Shumin No.205, at 825

Date of Judgment: February 28, 2002

 

Issuing Authority: Supreme Court

 

Level of the Issuing Authority: Final Instance

 

Type of Procedure: JudicialAdministrative

 

Subject Matter: Trademarks

 

Main text of the judgment (decision):

 

Judgment in prior instance shall be reversed, and this case shall be remanded to Tokyo High Court

 

Reasons:

 

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

 

   1. Outline of factual relationships and the like finalized in the court of prior instance is as follows.

   Appellants of final appeal as well as D and E jointly owned the trademark right according to the registered trademark (establishment registered on August 31, 1993, Registration No. 2564665, hereinafter, referred to as the "present registered trademark") for the trademark in which vertically written characters of "水沢うどん(Mizusawa Udon)" with designated goods of "Udon noodles, instant Udon noodles" in Class 32 in the Appended Table of the enforcement ordinance of the Trademark Act (before revision by the 1991 Ordinance No. 299).  Appellees made a request for an invalidation trial of the trademark registration according to the present registered trademark with Appellants as well as D and E as demandants on October 27, 1997.

   The Japan Patent Office made a decision on the aforementioned trial case on April 6, 2000 to the effect that the trademark registration according to the present registered trademark was to be invalidated for the reason of applicability to Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii) of the Trademark Act.  The certified copy of the aforementioned decision was delivered to Appellants as well as D and E on the 26th day of the same month, and Appellants instituted a lawsuit against the aforementioned JPO decision on May 25 of the same year.  However, D and E prepared the statement on abandonment of the share that the trademark right according to the present registered trademark shall be abandoned as of April 30 of the same year and did not institute a lawsuit against the aforementioned JPO decision by the time limit of action against the decision.

   Appellants as well as D and E filed a petition of share transfer registration that the shares of D and E shall be transferred to each of Appellants with the cause of the aforementioned share abandonment on July 17 of the same year.

 

   2. In the present lawsuit, only Appellants sought rescission of the JPO decision, but the court of prior instance judged as follows and dismissed the present lawsuit.

   The lawsuit that seeks rescission of the JPO decision to the effect that the trademark registration is to be invalidated (hereinafter, referred to as the "invalidation JPO decision") for the jointly owned trademark right needs to be final and binding in a unified manner since it determines presence/absence of one right owned by all the joint holders and is a compulsory joinder.

   Since the time limit of action against the decision has elapsed without institution of a lawsuit by D and E, the present lawsuit according to the institution only by Appellants is unlawful.

 

   3. However, the aforementioned judgment of the court of prior instance cannot be accepted.  The reasons therefor are as follows.

   (1) In the case of the jointly owned right generated by the filing of the trademark registration, when a trial is to be requested for the right, all the joint holders should do that jointly (Article 132, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act applied mutatis mutandis to Article 56, paragraph (1) of the Trademark Act).  This is exactly because coincidence of intentions of all the joint holders is required for obtainment of one trademark right which is to be held by the joint holders.  On the other hand, once the establishment of the trademark right is registered, the joint holders of the trademark right can use the registered trademark without consent of the other joint holders, although consent of the other joint holders is required for procedures such as transfer of the share, establishment of exclusive use right, or the like (Article 73 of the Patent Act applied mutatis mutandis to Article 35 of the Trademark Act). 
   Incidentally, in the case where the invalidation decision of the trademark registration was made for the once registered trademark right, if the time limit of action against the decision has elapsed without institution of a lawsuit seeking rescission thereof, the trademark right is deemed never to have existed, and the right to exclusively use the registered trademark retrospectively lapses (Article 46-2 of the Trademark Act).  Therefore, since the institution of the aforementioned lawsuit of rescission falls under a preservation act preventing lapse of the trademark right, it is understood that it can be made singularly by each of the joint holders of the trademark right.  And even with such understanding, the right of the joint holder who did not institute a lawsuit is not ruined.

   (2) Regarding the jointly owned trademark right, since the situations of respective profits and interests of the joint holders can be different, if cooperation by the other joint holders cannot be gained for the institution of a lawsuit or if the registration is not completed within the time limit of action against the decision even though the share was disposed of after the invalidation decision, the invalidation decision might be made even after extinction of the trademark right (see Article 46, paragraph (2) of the same Act), and such a case is assumed that a long time has elapsed since the establishment of the trademark right was registered and whereabouts of the other joint holders become unknown.  If the rescission lawsuit against the invalidation decision of the jointly held trademark registration is understood to be the compulsory joinder in such a case, and it is supposed that the lawsuit instituted only by some of the joint holders to be unlawful, the invalidation decision is final and binding at the same time as expiration of the time limit of the action against the decision, and the trademark right is deemed never to have existed, which can be an unreasonable result.

   (3) Even if it is understood that each of the joint holders of the trademark right can singularly institute a lawsuit to rescind the invalidation decision, if the judgment approving the claim is final and binding in the lawsuit, the effect of the rescission reaches to the other joint holders (Article 32, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act) and the trial proceeding is performed in relation with all the joint holders at the Patent Office again (Article 181, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act applied mutatis mutandis to Article 63, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act).  On the other hand, if the judgment to dismiss the claim is final and binding in the lawsuit, the invalidation decision is final and binding by expiration of the time limit of the action against the decision in relation with the other joint holders, and the right is deemed never to have existed (Article 46-2 of the Trademark Act).  In any case, such a situation that contradicts the request of unified final and binding is not generated.  Moreover, if each of the joint holders instituted a rescission lawsuit jointly or individually, the lawsuits should be understood to fall under the quasi-mandatory joinder, and they are combined and then, examined/judged, whereby the request for unified final and binding is fulfilled.

   (4) As held as above, [summary] it is reasonable to understand that when the invalidation decision of the jointly held trademark registration is made, each of the joint holders of the trademark right can singularly institute the rescission lawsuit of the invalidation decision.

 

   4. Then, the judgment of the court of prior instance that the present lawsuit is unlawful has violation of the laws and orders which obviously affects the judgment.  The gist has grounds.  The Supreme Court 1960 (O) 684, First Petty Bench judgment on August 31, 1961/Minshu vol. 15, No. 7, page 2040, Supreme Court 1977 (Gyo-Tsu) 28, Second Petty Bench judgment on January 18, 1980/Court Collection Civil No. 129, page 43, and Supreme Court 1994 (Gyo-Tsu) 83, Third Petty Bench judgment on March 7, 1995/Minshu vol. 49, No. 3, page 944 are cases different from the present case, which is not appropriate.  Therefore, the judgment in prior instance shall be reversed, and the present case shall be remanded to the court of prior instance so that this case is to be examined.

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

 

 (This translation is provisional and subject to revision.)