fulfilled
Trademarks
Q1. If a trademark application is to be filed in Japan claiming Convention Priority based on a non-Japanese application, is the priority period one year as in patent applications?
A1. No. For filing a trademark application in Japan claiming Convention priority, the priority period is six (6) months, instead of one year, from the filing of the priority application.
Q2. Are there any specific points to be noted for registering a trademark in Japan?
A2. Some of the points to be noted for registering a trademark in Japan are as follows.
(1) Goods and services acceptable in Japan: In the case of trademark registration in Japan via Madrid protocol, the JPO may object to the indications of goods/services in the International Register as being too vague even if they should be acceptable under the NICE Agreement. This is because the JPO relies on its own list of goods and
services as prescribed in the examination standards. For
example, “Apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water” found in the NICE Classifications is not found acceptable by the JPO, and it should be
amended to “Aircraft; automobiles; bicycles; motorcycles; rolling stock for
railways; ships”. The amendment of indications
is possible as long as it is within the scope of the original
(2) Requirement for use of trademark: A registrable trademark in Japan is a trademark which is being used or which is intended to be used in the near future. When the range of the goods and services listed in one class is too broad, the trademark will be rejected because the veracity of use or intention of use of the trademark becomes doubtful.
(3) Registrable subject matter: Currently, sounds, smells, colors, textures, tastes and movements are not registerable as trademarks in Japan. (However, the JPO is planning to submit a bill to revise the trademark law to the Japanese Diet in 2013. So, registration of the mentioned subjects as trademarks may become possible in the near future.)
Q3. Are there any means to accelerate examination of a trademark application in Japan?
A3. Yes. A request for accelerated examination can be filed anytime after the filing of your trademark application, and the request should be granted as long as the following condition 1 or 2 is met .
Condition 1 : Actual use of trademark and need for quick registration
You or your licensee is already using your trademark for the goods or services designated in your application, or are preparing to use the trademark, AND
The trademark rights need to be granted urgently due to any one or more of the following reasons:
1) A third party is using a trademark which is the same or similar to your trademark without authorization from you or your licensee, in connection with designated goods or services that are the same or similar to the goods and services for which you or your licensee has been using the trademark, or for which you or your licensee has prepared to a considerable degree to use the trademark.
2) A third party has given a warning with respect to the use of your trademark.
3) A third party is demanding an agreement to their use of your trademark.
4) You have also applied for the trademark registration at a Patent Office other than the Japan Patent Office (JPO), or to an intergovernmental organization.
Condition 2: Use of trademark only for designated goods or services
Your application designates only the goods and services for which you or your licensee is already using the trademark or you or your licensee is preparing to use the trademark.
Q4. What are the documents necessary for filing a request for accelerated examination for a trademark application in Japan?
A4. A document entitled "Explanation of the Circumstances Concerning Accelerated Examination” should be filed together with evidence(s) showing that the above-mentioned Condition 1 or 2 is fulfilled by the trademark application.
Q5. What are the specifics of the individual fee system for a trademark registration via Madrid Protocol designating Japan.
A5. The JPO has adopted an individual fee consisting of two parts in accordance with Rule 34(3)(a) of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Protocol.
First part of the individual fee: This corresponds to an application fee, and is paid at the time of international registration or the subsequent designation.
Second part of the individual fee: This corresponds to a registration fee, and is paid within the prescribed period mentioned in the notification issued with the Notice of Grant. Failure of payment results in cancellation of the designation of Japan in the international registration.
Both fees are to be paid directly to the International Bureau of the WIPO.
タグ：
application or be patent Japan an JPO Patent Japanese not filing with design filed claim period Office Examination at one art after any Notice has grant prior applications request above examination file only been case within Inter trademark use other issue IP may months will system priority we more documents should under than mentioned results right non law Act services necessary also same amendment inter third there based A2 go A1 consisting Prior Rule agreement so ex Cir possible rights following What Grant time registration scope even re fee granted month similar end without However Q2 Q1 party national accelerated prepared using issued International long claiming out international two need subject state example because Ex Accelerated Yes used WIPO their do year Q3 A3 water respect follows given goods ep original matter side reason reasons Q4 designated applied document directly Reg condition being A4 licensee warning becomes they rejected her found per see good am parts its acceptable evidence his rolling result gov noted notification payment paid designating together via vice preparing degree individual Madrid ratio amended accordance become Second place listed part six specific entitled Convention showing fees due how First service connection ended exam How Condition Concerning already able amend instead show means own over reject near trademarks submit indication oa note Some Re Priority Protocol Q5 Regulations man list low mm Use range quick read protocol registering red planning point points NICE prescribed fr fulfilled future considerable corresponds ed designation doubt ip automobiles automobile broad indications Agreement Failure A5 Classification way
Utility Models
Q1. What are the differences between a patent and a utility model in Japan?
A1. The utility model system in
The distinct features of the utility model system are:
that a utility model registration is only for protecting “devices” related to shape or construction of articles or combination of articles (in other words, other inventions, such as methods, chemical compounds and pharmaceuticals, cannot be protected under utility model act);
that a utility model is registered without substantive examination; and
that a duration of a registered utility model is only 10 years from the filing date of the utility model application.
Differences between a patent and a utility model are summarized in the following Table.
| Patent | Utility Model | |
| Subject of protection | Devices, methods, chemical compounds, etc. | Devices related to shape or construction of articles or combination of articles (Methods, chemical compounds, etc. cannot be protected) |
| Application documents required | Specification including Claims and Abstract; and, if any, Drawing(s) (optional) | Specification including Claims and Abstract; and Drawing(s) (not omissible) |
| Substantive examination | Request for Examination must be filed within 3 years from the filing date | No substantive examination; Registered when basic formal requirements are fulfilled |
| Time period required for registration | Possibly, several years from filing of the Request for Examination | About 4-6 months from the filing date |
| Duration of protection | 20 years from the filing date (may be extended in some cases) | 10 years from the filing date (non-extensible) |
| Enforcement of right | Enforceable based on granted patent | “Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion” is necessary for enforcing the utility model right |
Q2. What is a “Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion”?
A2. The Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion is an assessment report about the registrability (novelty, inventive step, etc.) of a utility model application or a registered utility model. This report is prepared by an Examiner of the Japan Patent Office upon request and payment of official fees. Anyone (that is, not only the Applicant of the utility model, but also any third party) can validly file a request for the Report.
As explained in item “A1” above, a utility model is registered without a substantive examination. In this connection, for an owner of a utility model to enforce the utility model right against an infringer, firstly, a warning accompanied by the Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion must be sent to the infringer. Therefore, the above-mentioned Report is necessary for instituting an infringement suit in Japan.
Q3. Is it possible to convert a patent application into a utility model application?
A3. Yes. Conversion of a patent application into a utility model application is allowed if an appropriate step is taken within 3 months (for Applicants residing in Japan) or 4 months (for Applicants residing outside Japan) from the mailing date of the Decision for Rejection, or within nine years and six months from the filing date of the patent application, whichever expires earlier. Such a converted utility model application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original patent application, and the original patent application is deemed to be withdrawn.
Q4. Is it possible to convert a utility model application into a patent application?
A4. Yes. Conversion of a utility model application (or a registered utility model resulting therefrom) into a patent application is allowed if an appropriate step is taken within 3 years from the filing date of the utility model application. However, it should be noted that such conversion is not allowed after the applicant (or an assignee) has filed a request for the above-mentioned Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion, or after a 30-day period has passed from the date of a first official notice advising that a third party has filed a request for the Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion. Such a converted patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original utility model application, and the original utility model application is deemed to be withdrawn. (Such a converted patent application cannot be converted back into a utility model application.)
タグ：
application or be patent Japan an Patent not filing with filed period Office date Examination at Request one art rce invention after any has grant request above examination utility Rejection epo file report only case within such other into may months model system we documents should method under between mentioned related all but right small having non must necessary also Decision third Report there registered Application based A2 requirement A1 applicant step against Utility so ex about possible following What registration required re fee granted month years end without residing However Q2 Q1 party cannot Applicant form Applicants prepared cases etc Therefore out including first Technical Ex Examiner Yes allowed differences do year Q3 A3 conversion requirements formal Method some ep articles protection benefit original side upon Claim infringement like Model Q4 Opinion article document distinct difference Reg construction A4 device assignee warning Specification combination Such country basic countries notice outside extended her per Table am inventions item inventive Claims back his result often order nor noted novelty payment converted valid vice words compounds require ratio deemed ability appropriate methods allow adding act place official There part six entitled feature fees explained extensible devices connection day ended cells exam chemical How Subject able late shape up own omissible minor protected protecting novel substantive therefrom taken take note Re mailing accompanied low mm red passed Mode fr fulfilled force convert ed earlier invent infringer called validly Abstract Drawing Dr suit try An withdrawn Conversion Devices several Any Difference
