IP High Court

Hermès beat Birkin Bag Imitator for Trademark Infringement

2020年12月26日Birkin, damages, Hermes, IP High Court, passing-off, Tokyo District Court, Trade dress, trademark infringement, Unfair Competition Prevention ActAcquired distinctiveness, Article 3(2), Famous mark, IP High Court, Similarity of mark, Three dimensional mark, Tokyo District Court, Trade dress, trademark infringement, Unfair Competition Prevention ActMasaki MIKAMI

On December 17, 2020, the Japan IP High Court upheld awards for JPY2,900,000 for damages suffered by Hermès in relation to a trademark infringement and passing-off case regarding the Birkin Bag imitations.[Court case no....

Starbucks defeated in trademark battle to defend the logo

2020年9月27日Article 4(1)(xi), Article 4(1)(xv), Bull Pulu, invalidation trial, IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Likelihood of confusion, mermaid, similarity of mark, siren, StarbucksArticle 4(1)(xi), Article 4(1)(xv), Composite mark, compound mark, Famous mark, Invalidation trial, IP High Court, Likelihood of confusion, Similarity of markMasaki MIKAMI

On September 16, 2020, the Japan IP High Court dismissed an appeal by the American multinational coffee house chain, Starbucks Corporation, challenging the unfavorable decision made by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) that...

Japan IP High Court Ruling on Distinctiveness of Position Mark

2020年9月12日Acquired distinctiveness, Article 3(1)(vi), Article 3(2), Cutting Comb, inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Position mark, Secondary meaning, YS ParkAcquired distinctiveness, Article 3(1)(vi), Article 3(2), Inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, New Trademark Law, New type of trademark, Position mark, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

On August 27, 2020, the Japan IP High Court ruled to affirm the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decision and rejected TM application no. 2016-34650 for a position mark consisting of fourteen open ellipses built-in grip section...

Fashion Designer Lost Trademark Dispute Over His Name

2020年8月23日Article 4(1)(viii), IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Name of a living individual, personal rights, Supreme Court, TAKAHIROMIYASHITA, TheSoloist, trademark examination manualArticle 4(1)(viii), compound mark, Famous mark, IP High Court, Name of a living individual, Refusal appeal, Trademark Examination ManualsMasaki MIKAMI

On July 29, 2020, the Japan IP High Court ruled to dismiss an appeal by Kabushiki Kaisha Soloist, founded by Takahiro Miyashita, a Japanese fashion designer, who contested a decision by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) to...

Is “MAHARAJA” a generic term in relation to Indian restaurants?

2020年7月26日Article 4(1)(xi), generic term, IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, maharaja, similarity of mark, similarity of serviceArticle 4(1)(xi), Generic term, IP High Court, Refusal appeal, Similarity of mark, Similarity of service, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

On July 8, 2020, the Japan IP High Court affirmed the JPO’s rejection in a trademark dispute over the “MAHARAJA” mark for Indian restaurant services in class 43. [Judicial case no. Reiwa2(Gyo-ke)10022]

<!--...

Japan IP High Court ruling: “I♡JAPAN” lacks distinctiveness as a trademark

2020年6月28日Article 3(1)(vi), I love Japan, inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, JPO, lack of distinctiveness, trademark appeal, trademark applicationAbbreviation, Article 3(1)(vi), Composite mark, compound mark, Device mark, Inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, Refusal appeal, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

On June 17, 2020, the Japan IP High Court affirmed the JPO’s rejection of the “I♡JAPAN” mark in relation to various goods of class 14,16,18 and 24 due to a lack of distinctiveness. [Judicial case no. Reiwa...

Japan IP High Court sided with Apple Inc. in “CORE ML” trademark dispute

2020年6月20日Apple Inc., Article 4(1)(xi), Composite mark, CORE MIL, IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Seiko, similarity of mark, Supreme Court, trademark appealAbbreviation, Article 4(1)(xi), Composite mark, compound mark, Inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, Refusal appeal, Similarity of mark, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

On May 20, 2020, the Japan IP High Court denied the JPO decision and sided with Apple Inc. by finding the “CORE ML” mark is dissimilar to senior trademark registration no. 5611369 for word mark “CORE” in...

First ruling by IP High Court on New Type of Trademark in Japan

2020年2月29日Acquired distinctiveness, Article 3(1)(iii), inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, New type of trademark, Position mark, Rainbow, TOYOTOMIAcquired distinctiveness, Article 3(1)(iii), Inherent distinctiveness, IP High Court, New Trademark Law, New type of trademark, Position mark, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

On February 14 2020, the Japan IP High Court ruled to uphold the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decision and rejected TM application no. 2016-009831 for a 3D position mark consisting of three virtual images of oil stove flame...

Japan IP High Court Ordered Unofficial Mario Kart To Pay Nintendo Over $450,000

2020年2月1日damages, IP High Court, Mario Kart, Nintendo, Unfair Competition Prevention ActFamous mark, IP High Court, Unfair Competition Prevention ActMasaki MIKAMI

On January 29, 2020, the Japan IP High Court ruled in favor of Nintendo over a case against go-kart operator Mari Mobility (the company formally named Maricar) and ordered damage compensation of 50 million JP.

<!--...

Empire Steak House loses to trademark its restaurant name in Japan IP High Court battle

2020年1月12日Article 4(1)(xi), EMPIRE, EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE, IP High Court, JAPAN PATENT OFFICE, Japan Trademark Law, Supreme CourtArticle 4(1)(xi), Composite mark, IP High Court, Madrid Protocol, Refusal appeal, Similarity of mark, Trademark AppealMasaki MIKAMI

On December 26, 2019, the Japan IP High
Court ruled to uphold a rejection by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) to International
Registration no. 1351134 for the mark “EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE” in class 43 due to a
conflict with...

MARKS IP LAW FIRM

Subscribe and Follow