August 25, 2017

To: Secretariat of Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters, Cabinet OfficeCouncil for Intellectual Property Protection on Internet (CIPP)

CIPP Report for Fiscal Year 2016
As you have already known as a participant, since fiscal 2005, the CIPP has beencommitted to collaborative activities on the private-sector level by inviting the Secretariat ofIntellectual Property Strategy Headquarters at the Cabinet Office, National Police Agency,
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications,
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan Patent Office, and Consumer Affairs Agency as observers
in order to solve the problem of the distribution of intellectual property rights (IPR) infringing
goods arising from Internet services.
We hope that you will refer to this report as a consensus of right holders (individuals andorganizations) and Internet service operators.
[Overview]
1. A Report from the Effectiveness Verification Committee

For this fiscal year, we verified the effectiveness of the measures against

infringement not only in the Internet auction services (from here on referred to as the“Auction”) but also in the flea market applications (from here on referred to as “Flea-Ma”).
At the same time, we have catalogued and organized the results based on grouping by
the occurrence rate of infringing goods in order to more clearly show how efforts by rightholders as well as C2C (customer-to-customer) marketplace operators such as Auction
and Flea-Mas (from here on referred to as “Platformers”). We have to note that during
this fiscal year, as well as last year, there were no Platformers who will be categorized inGroup 2 (See Document 3).


For Group 1, we confirmed that the occurrence rate of IPR-infringing goods has

been kept at a low level, as in last fiscal year, as a result of Platformers’ voluntary patrols

1and removals upon given notice from right holders


For Group 3, compared with the year before and two years ago, the occurrence

rate of infringing goods this year declined greatly. We were able to confirm that ourmeasures against IPR-infringing goods has been paying off.

2. A Report from the Guidelines Committee
We discussed how the “Guidelines for the Prevention of Distribution of Internet
IPR-Infringing Goods” (from here on referred to as the “Guidelines”), which had beenrevised in FY2010, were put into practice and what the latest infringement cases were.
In addition, we considered a draft for revising the Guidelines in order to reorganize the entire
format following a decision at our previous meeting to include Flea-Ma under the Guidelines.
Also, we clarified the role of the Guidelines annex in combatting infringement and examinedwhich categories, texts and goods should be added for verification purposes.

21. A Report from the Effectiveness Verification Committee(1) The Effectiveness Verification Method
This year, as in previous years, we set up operating procedures (please see Document 2“Effectiveness Verification Implementation Method”) at the “Effectiveness Verification
Committee,” which consists of individuals who were in charge of removal requests on theright holders’ side and their counterparts on the platformers side. We have conducted theverification based on these procedures.
①The range of goods for effectiveness verification
For this fiscal year, we decided to examine seven services, including Auction as well as
newly added Flea-Ma services.
②Goods for effectiveness verification
For this fiscal year, as in the previous year, we divided the goods for effectivenessverification into two categories.
(i) Infringing Goods
These consist of offered items that could be judged as infringement upon a copyright ortrademark based on their on-screen texts or images, and that would allow right holders torequest Platformers to suspend such goods.
(ii) “Goods Having a High Probability of Infringement”
These are the goods which have no direct visible grounds for infringement in the provided
information (when checked against the Guidelines, etc.) that would allow platformers toremove such goods. However, (1) they are the goods which are deemed to be haveinfringed a copyright or trademark as a result of appraisal of the texts and images on screen
by a right holder and if the right holder makes a request for removal, Platformers can takeaction (“Infringing Goods Without Notice”), or (2) they are the goods which are deemed aswithout doubt being infringing goods as a result of purchase and appraisal based on various
pieces of information by the right holder (“Infringing Goods which Need Confirmation”).
3➂Grouping of Platformers
In order to clarify further the achievements of voluntary action by right owners andPlatformers, from this fiscal year, we divided Platformers’ services into Groups 1 to 3 by theoccurrence rate of infringing goods.
(i) Group 1 (The average occurrence rate of infringing goods in the last three years is lessthan 2 percent): 6 services(ii) Group 2 (The average occurrence rate of infringing goods in the last three years is morethan 2 percent but less than 10 percent): 0(iii) Group 3 (The average occurrence rate of infringing goods in the last three years is morethan 10 percent):1

4

(2) Verification Results①Auction(i) “Infringing Goods” Occurrence Rate2014

Copyright

Trademark

Total

2015

% of
infringement

Group 1# ofverified
items
5,607

Group 2

―

2016

% of
infringement

0.03%

# of
verified
items
3,256

% of
infringement

0.37%

# of
verified
items
2,328

―

―

―

―

―

0.04%

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

2,919

0.27%

943

9.12%

1,399

0.79%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

8,526

0.12%

4,199

2.33%

3,727

0.32%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

(ii) Occurrence Rate of “Goods Having a High Probability of Infringement”

2014

Copyright

Trademark

Total

2015

% of
probabilityGroup 1# ofverified
items
5,607

Group 22016

% ofprobability

0.78%

# of
verified
items
3,256

% of
probability

0.71%

# of
verified
items
2,328

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

2,919

0.10%

943

5.93%

1,399

1.00％

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

1.98%

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

8,526

0.55%

4,199

2.33%

3,727

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

1.61％
―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

5

Changes in Occurrence Rate at Auction markets (Total of Copyrights and Trademarks)

Changes in Infringing Goods Occurence Rate
(Total of Copyrights and Trademarks)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2014

2015

Infringing Goods

2016

Goods Having a High Probability of Infringement②Flea-Ma(i) “Infringing Goods” Occurrence Rate2014

Copyright

Trademark

Total

2015

% of
infringement

Group 1# ofverified
items―Group 22016

% ofinfringement―# ofverified
items
―

% of
infringement―# ofverified
items
3,924

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

242

0.00%

Group 1

―

―

―

―

3,020

1.09%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

1,200

84.7%

400

32.0%

3,924

4.46%

Group 1

―

―

―

―

6,944

0.48%

0.00%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

1200

84.7%

400

32.0%

915

3.28%

6

(ii) Occurrence Rate of “Goods Having a High Probability of Infringement”

2014

Copyright

Trademark

Total

2015

% of
probabilityGroup 1# ofverified
items―Group 22016

% ofprobability―# ofverified
items
―

% of
probability―# ofverified
items
3,924

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

602

0.00%

―

―

242

0.00％

Group 1
Group 2

―

―

―

―

3,020

―

―

―

―

―

0.30％
―

Group 3

1,200

84.7%

38

9.50%

673

4.01％

Group 1

―

―

―

―

6,944

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

1.71％
―

Group 3

1,802

56.4%

38

9.50%

915

2,95％

Changes in “Infringing Goods” Occurrence Rate at Flea-Ma (Total of Copyrights andTrademarks)

2014

2015

2016

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Copyright Group 1

Copyright Group 3

Trademark Group 1

Trademark Group 3

7

2.80%

Changes in Occurrence Rate of “Goods Having a High Probability of Infringement” at
Flea-Ma (Total of Copyrights and Trademarks)

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2014

2015
Copyright Group 1

Copyright Group 3

Trademark Group 1

Trademark Group 3

2016*For graphics purposes, the occurrence rates for infringed goods and goods having a highprobability of infringement are displayed separately.
(3) An Analysis of Verification Results(i) Auction
Both of the occurrence rates of “Infringing Goods” and “Goods Having a High Probability of
Infringement” are categorized in Group 1 and have been kept extremely low for this fiscal
year as well. On copyrights, the occurrence rate of “Goods Having a High Probability of
Infringement” rose slightly compared to the year before. This is due to the fact that we founda new type of goods categorized as “Goods Having a High Probability of Infringement.”
From now on, appropriate countermeasures will be taken using cooperation between rightholders and Platformers. Therefore, this slight increase in the occurrence rate in “Goods
Having a High Probability of Infringement” will be a temporary one.
(ii) Flea-Ma
From this fiscal year, four Flea-Ma operators were added to be subjected to our verification
process. As the rate of infringement occurrence is low both for “Infringing Goods” and“Goods Having a High Probability of Infringement,” three out of the four were categorized in8Group 1. Meanwhile, as for the remaining one service which was categorized as Group 3,
the occurrence rate was zero both for “Infringing Goods” and “Goods Having a HighProbability of Infringement” regarding their respective copyrights. In terms of trademark
rights, the occurrence rate for “Infringed Goods” declined from 84% to 32% and then to 3%
this fiscal year. The occurrence rate for “Goods Having a High Probability of Infringement”
reduced from 84% to 9% and to 4% this fiscal year. Therefore, we believe that a great dealof achievement has been made to curb the spread of infringing goods in the markets.
(4) Others


The Association of Copyright for Computer Software (ACCS) said: “Thecooperation between right holders and operators has paid off as the copyright-related
infringement rate has been almost 0% for these past several years. However, we areaware that there are still a certain amount of goods which right holders cannot tolerate.”

Union des Fabricants said that when they made a trial investigation at several

shopping malls and flea markets which were outside of our effectiveness verification
services, the occurrence rate was nearly 100 percent in some of the services. Therefore,
they pointed out that how to follow shopping mall and flea market operators outside theremit is a problem. However, as the UDF’s investigation was made as a reference for the
future, the results were not included in our effectiveness verification report.

9

2. A Report from the Guidelines Committee

Based on the decision at a meeting of the CIPP in the last fiscal year to include flea market
service operators to follow the Guidelines, the Guidelines Committee studied a proposal torevise the Guidelines.
It also clarified the role of the Guidelines’ annex and examined which categories, texts andgoods should be added in the Guidelines.
It also picked up issues related to the distribution of copied goods called novelties anddiscussed which brands, goods and keywords should be examined. However, it could notform a consensus as a group. This will continue to be discussed.
3. A Summary of Activities for This Fiscal YearAs stated above, it has been confirmed that we continued to be able to force down theoccurrence rate of infringed goods in Group 1 to an extremely low level this fiscal year bypromoting a “Japanese approach” in which both right holders and operators respect eachother’s positions and collaboratively stand up against infringers.
From next fiscal year onwards, we will study how to deal with new forms of infringement. We
plan to tackle measures to combat IPR-infringing goods not only at the platformer level but
also in shopping malls.
We would appreciate it if the government would introduce CIPP’s work to other countries
because the CIPP has made achievements unlike any other in the world and help its work to
becoming recognized as the de facto standard of measures against IPR-infringing goods on
the Internet.

10

Various Statistical Data
■ Number of goods offered (Unit: 10,000)

No. of goods offered

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

4,203

4,845

4,994

5,406

11,656▷Total figures from 5 out of 7 platformers who are official members of the CIPP.
▷To calculate, we measured the number of items on offer at a certain time on a certain day inDecember of the relevant year and then calculated the daily average as “the number ofoffered items.”▷It is difficult to compare figures year-by-year and see a trend because there are fluctuationsin the number of platformers operating.
■ Number of self-deletions

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Copyrights

62,69462,40024,685

15,52965,835Trademark right

233,273

54,791

90,68073,182552,276

Total

295,967

117,191

115,365

88,711

771,043▷Total figures from 6 out of 7 platformers who are official members of the CIPP.
▷Out of the 6, one platformer does not measure the number of self-deletions by the type of
infringements. Therefore, its figures were added only to the total figures.
▷As in the case of the above table, it is difficult to compare figures year-by-year and see atrend because there are fluctuations in the number of platformers operating.
■ Number of deletion requests from right holders

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

754

315

116

300

1,896

Trademark right

54,42844,90530,45885,053

183,138

Total

55,18245,22030,57485,353

185,034

Copyrights▷Total figures from 5 out of 7 platformers who are official members of the CIPP.
▷The figures include the deletions of individual items as well as deletions caused by11

stopping auctioneers’ use of the service.
▷Some right holders change services and goods that they focus their surveillance on inorder to undertake effective measures to combat the infringement of intellectual property
rights. Therefore, it is difficult to compare figures year-by-year and demonstrate a trend.

Principles of the Japanese Approach
1. Both parties (right holders and platform providers) shall be aware that they should fully
respect each other’s positions and then make collaborative efforts in standing up against
their common enemies, that is, infringers, in order to protect not only their own interest
but also the interests of consumers among others.
2. Right holders must be made aware that they should enforce their own rights, which are
not automatically protected.
3. Platform providers should be aware that they should make active efforts to protect
their own intellectual property rights for the development of a sound Internet.
4. Both parties shall be aware in the course of the promotion of countermeasures thatthey should agree on the equal importance of the protection of intellectual property rights
and the securement of users’ freedom for business and also the secrecy ofcommunication, and that they should take actions not to undermine the value of either
aspect of business.

12