similar

宣誓供述書の書き方について(2):米国(Part 2)

[例2] この例においては、[例1]のように宣誓供述書の供述内容を別紙のExhibit(甲号証又は乙号証)とはしていません。また、発明者以外によって署名された例です。

内容としては、医療装置(変形爪の矯正装置)に関する二次的考慮事項(商業的成功など)に関して提出したものです。(米国出願の中間処理において弊所が実際に提出したものに基づいていますが、固有名詞・用語・数値などは適宜変更してあります。)

(商業的成功に関する宣誓供述書の書式の1例)

IN THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Applicant:Taro YAMADA
Serial No.:XX/XXX,XXX
Filed:XXXX, 20XX
For:APPARATUS FOR CORRECTING AN INGROWN NAIL
Art Unit:3772
Examiner:Dan HICKS

 



DECLARATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. 1.132

 

    I, Goro Kimura, a Japanese citizen residing at XXXX, Tokyo, Japan, declare and say: 
    I was graduated from the Faculty of Medicine, XXX University in March 2005.
    In April 2005, I entered XYZ Clinic where I have been practicing the treatment of hallux valgus and ingrown nails.
    I am well familiar with the present case.
    I read and understood the Office Action dated XXXX, 2011 and references cited therein. I have carried out treatments of ingrown nails with the apparatus disclosed in claim 1 of the present application at XYZ Clinic following the instructions given by Mr. Taro Yamada who is the director of the clinic and is the inventor of the present application. Some of the results of the treatments are as reported in the website of XYZ Clinic at http://www.adcdefg-hijk.com.
    In the website, three cases of treatments are reported.  The treatments were performed using an apparatus as shown in Fig. A attached hereto.  As can be seen from Fig. A, the apparatus falls within the scope of claim 1 of the present application.
    As to the three cases (cases 1 to 3), the nails before and after the treatments are shown in Figs. B, C and D attached hereto, which are also shown at the above-mentioned website of XYZ Clinic.  In each of the tree treatments, the apparatus as shown in Fig. A was used as mentioned above.  Further, the reagents and operations in cases 1 to 3 were substantially the same as recited in Example 1 of the present application (paragraphs [00XX] to [00XX] of the specification of the present application) except that the inclination angle A of the lifting members, the lifting intervals and the nail correcting force were slightly varied depending on the characteristics of the ingrown nails of the patients.  As reported in the website of XYZ Clinic, the details of cases 1 to 3 are as follows.

Case 1:
Patient's gender and age:
    A female in her 30's.

Patient's background: 
    The patient wished to avoid a painful treatment because she had heard her acquaintance's report about having received a very painful operation for correcting an ingrown nail at another hospital which seemed to have been carried out without anesthesia.  The patient came to XYZ Clinic because she was attracted by the painless treatment of this clinic.

Results:
    The ingrown nail was corrected as shown in Fig. B by a single treatment which took about only 30 minutes.  The patient was satisfied with the results of the treatment because the ingrown nail had been corrected without feeling any pain during and after the treatment.

Case 2:
Patient's gender and age:
 
    A female in her 40's.

Patient's background: 
    The patient had a previous experience of nail-correction using a wire device which is to be hooked to the edges of the ingrown sides of the nail and is designed to lift the ingrown sides by pulling the hooked portions of the wire toward the center of the nail.
    However, she needed to go to the hospital so frequently that it became troublesome to her. As a result, the patient stopped going to the hospital before the completion of the nail correction.
    The patient also had a previous experience of nail-correction using a correction plate which is to be adhered on the surface of an ingrown nail and lifts the ingrown sides of the nail by the spring force of the plate, but the plate came off from the nail soon.

Results: 
    The ingrown nail was corrected as shown in Fig. C by performing twice an approx. 30-minute treatment, and the patient was pleased with the result.

Case 3:
Patient's gender and age: 
    A female in her 50's.

Patient's background: 
    Previously, the patient had her ingrown nail corrected by treatment using a wire device similar to that used by the patient of case 2, which treatment lasted about 18 months. However, the ingrown nail recurred after the termination of the treatment.

Results: 
    The ingrown nail was corrected as shown in Fig. D by a single approx. 30-minute treatment.  During and after the treatment, the patient did not feel any pain nor uncomfortable feeling.

    Finally, it should be added that almost all of the 900 patients having received this treatment so far were very satisfied with the results.

    From the above, it is apparent that the apparatus of the present invention surely enables the correction of an ingrown nail within a very short period of time, 1.e., within about 30 minutes to about 1 hour, with a very simple operation and without causing any pain nor uncomfortable feeling to the patent.
    Thus, the apparatus of the present invention has realized a surprisingly easy and effective treatment which is far more advantageous than the conventional surgical removal method which is complicated, cumbersome and is accompanied by pain during or after the surgery and risk of microbial infection, and the conventional treatments using various correction devices or apparatuses which are in many cases not so effective and require very long treatment periods.

    The undersigned petitioner declares that all statements made herein of his own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon.

Date:

(宣誓者の署名)
Goro Kimura

タグ:

米国  出願  発明  提出  application  or  be  patent  弊所  宣誓供述書  Japan  an  Japanese  not  with  design  変更  考慮  Final  claim  実際  Action  米国出願  period  Office  発明者  date  at  one  rce  invention  present  after  any  内容  has  treatment  above  epo  report  only  been  www  case  within  書式  such  use  other  may  months  will  以外  we  more  should  method  under  specification  than  made  事項  mentioned  results  all  but  中間処理  having  処理  Act  also  same  inter  information  was  there  用語  go  Art  nail  both  so  Case  ex  effective  about  医療  University  following  ingrown  time  scope  re  parent  fee  month  similar  each  end  without  residing  However  single  供述内容  署名  中間  Applicant  April  before  Further  装置  Exhibit  treatments  form  using  cases  XXXX  long  statements  成功  further  patient  out  XX  shown  inventor  need  state  Tokyo  数値  United  because  Ex  many  Examiner  during  有名  Mr  used  宣誓  PATENT  were  States  very  宣誓者  correction  substantial  follows  given  XXX  some  where  experience  ep  carried  Clinic  side  knowledge  recited  well  had  商業的成功  true  reference  who  like  供述書  cited  details  another  apparatus  device  declare  Fig  therein  these  willful  satisfied  petition  references  various  her  別紙  per  pending  Patient  see  Date  three  am  XYZ  Title  received  website  back  term  corrected  his  herein  result  March  statement  OFFICE  nor  Example  EC  citizen  convention  members  disclosed  dated  thereon  understood  valid  undersigned  二次的考慮事項  固有名詞  web  vice  宣誓供述  instruction  portion  issuing  depending  require  reported  ratio  nails  background  added  act  performed  petitioner  plate  closed  kg  less  pain  specific  DECLARATION  she  false  surely  far  substantially  how  Faculty  believed  feeling  apparent  female  devices  attached  familiar  complicated  conventional  発明者以外  How  20XX  Taro  Thus  UNDER  TRADEMARK  advantage  able  適宜変更  Results  say  late  wire  instructions  short  show  sides  own  previous  please  perform  商業的  minute  now  most  took  surface  hospital  ground  graduated  hereto  gender  二次的  乙号証  Section  Serial  Some  State  Re  painful  operations  operation  YAMADA  man  lifting  advantageous  accompanied  low  minutes  Unit  read  Kimura  punishable  red  periods  performing  patients  practicing  fr  declares  forming  force  hooked  correcting  except  effect  entered  enables  ed  fine  easy  became  invent  jeopardize  belief  believe  almost  approx  imprisonment  clinic  inform  came  characteristics  validity  uses  surgical  surprising  uncomfortable  site  simple  Code  signed  DE  Goro  toward  00XX  Finally  Filed 

米国での審査における実施可能性、新規性、非自明性の判断基準について

米国での審査通知への回答書において米国代理人が米国審査基準(MPEP)に参照して実施可能性・新規性・非自明性の法律的基準について述べた説明で、原則的な部分を理解する上で参考になるものがありましたので、多少補足を加えた上で、以下に紹介します。参考までに、英語と日本語訳文の両方を併記します。

Legal Standard for Enablement(実施可能性の法律的基準について)

The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that "the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without 'undue experimentation'." In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).(連邦巡回裁判所はたびたび、以下の趣旨の判断を示してきた:「明細書は、当業者が『過度な実験』を行なうことなく本発明の全範囲を実現して使用するための方法を教示しなければならない」)

Nevertheless, not everything necessary to practice the invention need be disclosed. In fact, what is well-known is best omitted. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991).(しかし、発明の実施に必要な全てを開示する必要はない。実際、周知のものは省略しても構わない。)

All that is necessary is that one skilled in the art be able to practice the claimed invention, given the level of knowledge and skill in the art. Further the scope of enablement must only bear a "reasonable correlation" to the scope of the claims. See, e.g., In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).(必要なことは、当業界の知識と技術の水準に鑑みて、クレームされた発明を当業者が実施できるように記載されていることだけである。)

As concerns the breadth of a claim relevant to enablement, the only relevant concern should be whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1236, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971).(実施可能性との関連におけるクレームの広さについては、明細書の開示により当業者に提供された実施可能性と、クレームが要求する保護の範囲とが一致していさえすればよい。) How a teaching is set forth, by specific example or broad terminology, is not important. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971).(教示の記載の仕方については、どのように記載されていても構わず、具体的実施態様による記載でもよいし、広い用語による記載でもよい。)

Legal Standard for Determining Anticipation(新規性判断の法律的基準について)

"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).(クレームに記載される全ての要素が明示的または潜在的に単一の先行技術文献に記載されている場合にのみ、クレームの新規性が欠如する。)

"When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (クレームが複数の構造や組成物を含む場合には、複数の構造または複数の組成物のいずれか1でも先行技術文献に記載されているならば、クレームの新規性が欠如する。)

"The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989).(クレームされるものと詳細まで完全に一致する発明が示されていることが必要である)

The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).(クレームが要求する通りに要素が配置されていることが必要であるが、用語が同一である必要はない。)

Legal Standard for Prima Facie Obviousness (一応の自明性の判断の法律的基準について)

MPEP § 2141 sets forth the guidelines in determining obviousness. First, the Examiner has to take into account the factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), which has provided the controlling framework for an obviousness analysis.(MPEP § 2141には、自明性を判断するガイドラインが示されている。審査官は、まず、グラハム事件で採用された事実認定基準(いわゆる、Grahamテスト)を考慮しなければならない。) The four Graham factors are(4つのGrahamテストは以下の通りである):

(a) determining the scope and contents of the prior art(先行技術の範囲と内容を決定すること);

(b) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims in issue(先行技術と当該クレームとの差を明確にすること);

(c) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art(当業者の技術水準を確定すること); and

(d) evaluating any evidence of secondary considerations(二次的考慮事項の証拠を評価すること). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).

Second, the Examiner has to provide some rationale for determining obviousness.(次に審査官は、自明性を支持するための何らかの論理付けを提示することが必要である。) MPEP § 2143 sets forth some rationales that were established in the recent decision of KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)(MPEP § 2143には、KSR事件で確立された論理付けが示されている。). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include(自明性を支持するための典型的な論理付けは以下の通りである。):

(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results(先行技術の要素を公知の方法で組み合わせて予想可能な結果を得ること);

(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results(ある公知の要素を他の要素で単純に置換して予想可能な結果を得ること);

(c) use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way(公知技術を用いて類似の装置(方法や製品)を同様に改善すること);

(d) applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results(改善可能な状態にある公知の装置(方法や製品)に公知技術を適用して予想可能な結果を得ること);

(e) "obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success(「試みることが自明」-成功するという合理的な期待を持って、特定された予測可能な有限個の解決方法から選択すること);

(f) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art(ある技術分野において公知のものは、設計上の動機やその他の市場の力に基づいて、同じ技術分野や異なる技術分野で使用するためのバリエーションが当業者によって予測可能であれば、そのようなバリエーションを促すかもしれない。); and

(g) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.(先行技術文献を改変したり先行技術文献の教示を組み合わせてクレームされた発明に到達するように当業者を導いたであろう、先行技術における教示、示唆または動機。)

As the MPEP directs, all claim limitations must be considered in view of the cited prior art in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143.03.(MPEPが示すように、一応の自明性を確立するためには、引用例に鑑みてクレームの全ての限定事項を考慮する必要がある。)

タグ:

米国  クレーム  発明  日本  新規性  記載  必要  明細書  以下  審査  or  be  先行技術  判断  可能  英語  審査官  開示  適用  要求  方法  an  範囲  説明  可能性  not  選択  本発明  with  同様  design  考慮  具体的  日本語  claim  明確  実際  使用  審査通知  同一  特定  公知  先行技術文献  EP  文献  at  技術  one  引用  art  当業者  基準  rce  採用  invention  事件  実験  実施  claims  any  証拠  提供  内容  理解  has  審査基準  prior  非自明性  結果  MPEP  通知  詳細  複数  関連  entity  only  ガイドライン  case  within  solution  決定  参照  代理人  Inter  分野  限定  use  技術分野  other  into  参考  issue  自明性  may  要素  自明  we  should  method  specification  合理的  between  Fed  原則的  事項  results  提示  all  but  right  解決  評価  組成物  類似  must  necessary  same  示唆  用語  趣旨  based  明示的  保護  部分  回答  KSR  obviousness  態様  would  so  欠如  ex  Cir  両方  知識  consideration  practice  製品  required  scope  認定  reasonable  状態  回答書  re  新規性判断  similar  ライン  disclosure  each  end  without  Q2  2d  single  置換  national  教示  完全  Further  identified  法律  装置  公知技術  到達  International  成功  claimed  米国代理人  out  shown  skill  need  周知  一応  example  予測  Ex  USPQ2d  Examiner  期待  skilled  secondary  引用例  either  provide  典型的  当該  テスト  differences  provided  test  裁判所  were  known  very  潜在的  補足  given  some  ep  those  確立  予想  protection  仕方  obtain  structure  make  side  明示  set  ordinary  reason  knowledge  well  include  実施可能  reference  原則  teach  cited  another  difference  device  実施可能性  determining  different  limit  Graham  decision  important  3d  USPQ  動機  her  found  per  elements  element  am  work  whether  apply  technique  product  predictable  実現  支持  term  evidence  enablement  非自明  his  forth  rolling  result  expectation  全範囲  order  事実  紹介  訳文  success  described  disclosed  論理  cover  代理  一致  二次的考慮事項  vice  what  単一  単純  prima  products  contained  composition  require  法律的基準  ratio  改善  Legal  deemed  obvious  number  methods  裁判  act  Second  設計  closed  omitted  less  構造  lines  確定  CCPA  specific  she  facie  facto  field  every  four  due  how  First  技術水準  analysis  devices  予想可能  combine  correlation  組成  certain  exam  established  Federal  How  配置  able  actual  Standard  Obviousness  論理付  view  verbis  variations  show  up  ipsissimis  own  日本語訳  over  多少  now  motivation  support  市場  teaching  take  改変  新規  過度  二次的  予測可能  省略  先行  明細  解決方法  設計上  業界  バリエーション  See  oa  Wright  limitations  account  according  Teleflex  mm  Prima  range  read  rationales  John  relevant  relation  recent  red  framework  fr  full  force  considered  content  hard  considerations  contents  establish  evaluating  everything  ed  experimentation  fact  ip  invent  broad  anticipated  arranged  conclusion  compositions  inherently  All  suggestion  try  Facie  terminology  undue  An  simple  yield  Circuit  sets  several  structures  Deere  way 

Design Registration

Q1. If a design 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 design applications in Japan claiming Convention priority, the priority period is for six (6) months, instead of one year, from the filing of the priority application.  Even if you have a design "patent" application filed at the USPTO, the priority period is 6 months for filing a Japanese patent application with a valid priority claim based on the degisn "patent" application filed in the US.  

You also have to be careful when filing a patent application in Japan claiming priority from both a patent application and a design application.  That is, for example, if you filed in your country a patent application on May 1, 2012 and a design application on October 30, 2012 and are now considering filing a patent application on May 1, 2013 in Japan claiming priority from both of the above-mentioned patent application and design application filed in your country, this date “May 1, 2013” is within one-year priority period based on the patent application but is after the expiration of six-month priority period (October 30, 2012 + 6 months = April 40, 2013) based on the design application.  Therefore, the priority claim based on the design application is not valid.  

Q2. I am planning to file a design patent application in Japan claiming priority from a US design patent application.  What are the major differences in practice between the United States and Japan that require particular attention?

A2.  Firstly, unlike the “design patent” in the United States which is one type of patents and is basically dealt with under the patent law, Japan has a design law separate from a patent law. 

Therefore, in Japan, an application for registration of a design is referred to as “design application”, not “design patent application” as in the United States.  

More importantly, this difference in legal system leads to some significant differences in design registration practice between the US and Japan representative examples of which are enumerated below.

Difference 1)  “Single design per application” system in Japan

It is understood that the US system allows an applicant to pursue two or more designs (embodiments) of a single inventive concept in a single design patent application.  This, however, is not the case in Japan.  According to the Japanese practice, each design application may include only a single design of single shape.

Therefore, in Japan, when a single priority application includes multiple designs, it is necessary to either:

-  file separate design applications with respect to the different designs, or

-  file an application including different designs and later file a divisional application(s).

In this connection, however, it should be noted that it is not allowed to file a divisional application on a “partial” design from a “whole” design application and vice versa.  Concerning the “partial” and “whole” designs, explanations are made below.

Further, there is an exception to the "single design per application" system, and the Japan's Design Law provides "related design" system for covering a plurality of similar designs.

1-1) Exception to the “single design per application” rule

The Japan’s Design Law exceptionally allows for discrete objects to be claimed in a single application if common sense indicates that such discrete objects are usually sold as a “set”, as in the case of, for example, a 3-piece set including a knife, fork and spoon. 

1-2) Related design applications

In the case where the priority US application contains a plurality of different but similar designs (e.g., minor variations of a certain design), such similar designs may be covered by utilizing the related design system in Japan.  Specifically, the similar designs can be covered by filing a principal design application and filing a related design application(s) by one day prior to the publication of the principal design. 

The design registered as the related design can be enforced independently of the registered principal design and other registered related design(s).  That is, a related design right can cover even a design similar to that related design, which, however, is not similar to the principal design. 

For covering such similar designs under the related design regime, it is possible to either:

-  file a principal design application and also file a related design application(s) simultaneously with the principal application or later (by one day prior to the publication of the principal design at the latest), or

-  file general design applications on the similar designs, and later amend the general applications into a principal design application and a related design application(s).

The JPO may find that the designs are not similar enough to be eligible for registration under the related design regime but there is no need to be so nervous about this point.  If the JPO denies the similarity, the JPO will issue an office action requesting the applicant to stop relying on the related design system and change the applications to normal applications.

 

Finally, the right of a registered related design is independent from the right of a registered principal design but there are the following exceptions.

1.   Synchronized protection term: 

The protection term for both of a registered principal design and a registered related design is 20 years from the registration date of the principal design.  This point, however, is substantially immaterial in the present case because the two applications will probably be registered almost simultaneously.  Further, the registered related design can be maintained even if the principal design is allowed to lapse due to non-payment of maintenance fee, and vice versa.   

 2.   Restriction of transfer of rights and licensing: 

The right of a registered related design cannot be transferred or licensed independently from the registered principal design.  That is, for transfer of design rights to a third party by assignment etc., the principal and related designs must be simultaneously transferred together to the same entity.  Further, also for licensing, the principal and related designs must be licensed simultaneously to the same entity.

 

Difference 2)  Partial Design System

The Japan’s Design Law has a “partial design system” which allows registration of parts of shapes or forms with distinct characteristics.  

The US system also provides a similar practice where dotted lines can be used to indicate non-claimed parts.  There is, however, one important difference.  That is, the Japan’s system requires that a partial design application should be filed with a clear indication that the application claims a partial design.  In the absence of such indication, the application will be recognized as claiming a whole design. 

Once filed with the indication of a partial design application, it is in principle not allowed to amend the application into a whole design application and vice versa.  Similarly, a divisional application on a partial design cannot be filed from a whole design application and vice versa. 

Therefore, if it is important to cover both of whole and partial designs, it is recommended to file both a whole design application and a partial design application.

 

Of course, there are many other differences between US and Japanese practices; however, the above differences are believed to be the main differences which require particular attention when filing a design application in Japan claiminig priority from a US design patent application.

タグ:

application  or  be  patent  USPTO  Japan  an  JPO  Japanese  not  filing  with  design  filed  Final  claim  period  action  date  at  one  art  rce  present  after  claims  any  has  prior  applications  office  request  above  file  entity  only  case  within  such  use  other  into  divisional  issue  pace  may  months  will  system  priority  we  more  should  under  between  made  mentioned  related  all  but  right  non  law  must  necessary  also  same  third  there  registered  based  A2  A1  patents  applicant  Prior  type  both  so  designs  ex  about  possible  rights  practice  following  What  registration  principal  even  re  fee  month  publication  similar  years  each  end  Q2  Q1  single  legal  party  Design  cannot  April  Further  form  principle  etc  Therefore  claiming  claimed  general  out  including  rule  simultaneously  two  need  Law  whole  United  public  example  because  Ex  many  covered  either  provide  used  allowed  differences  Part  do  year  referred  test  States  partial  substantial  plurality  usually  respect  some  where  ep  protection  clear  later  side  set  independent  main  include  material  who  like  expiration  distinct  difference  Restriction  different  considering  course  country  basic  below  important  her  per  however  am  parts  inventive  term  his  nor  noted  payment  cover  together  understood  valid  vice  versa  indicates  require  ratio  attention  allow  act  place  There  part  particular  lines  care  six  Convention  substantially  due  how  First  believed  connection  day  ended  certain  change  exam  May  According  Concerning  allows  Specifically  October  amend  late  variations  representative  maintenance  requires  instead  shape  separate  over  minor  now  most  indication  objects  note  State  Re  Priority  maintained  major  absence  man  licensed  licensing  low  mm  Unit  provides  regime  recognized  red  planning  point  practices  More  fr  force  covering  eligible  except  examples  ed  discrete  find  ip  invent  assignment  believe  almost  independently  indicate  characteristics  utilizing  try  Even  sold  Difference  transferred  transfer  requesting  Finally  Firstly  relying 

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 Madrid protocol application. 

(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 


お問い合わせ

Share | rss
ホームページ制作