March14, 2018

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

CIPP Report for Fiscal Year 2017
Since fiscal 2005, the CIPP has been committed to solve the problem of the infringement ofintellectual property rights (IPR) on the Internet through collaborative activities on theprivate-sector level by inviting the Secretariat of Intellectual 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 PatentOffice, and Consumer Affairs Agency as observers. We believe that the secretariat knows
this, having participated in our meetings.
We would like the secretary to see this report as a representation of consensus among rightholders (individuals and organizations) and Internet service operators.
[Overview]
1. A Report from the Effectiveness Verification Committee
For this fiscal year, we have continued to verify 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 verification results based ongrouping by the occurrence rate of infringing goods in order to clearly show theeffectiveness of voluntary efforts by right holders as well as C2C (customer-to-customer)
marketplace operators such as Auction and Flea-Mas (from here on referred to as“Platformers”).
For Group 1, the occurrence rate of IPR-infringing goods has been kept at a low level, as inlast fiscal year, as a result of removals of such goods through Platformers’ voluntary patrols
and information from right holders
For Group 3, compared with the year before and two years ago, the occurrence rate of1

infringing goods this fiscal year declined greatly in one of the two services. We were able toconfirm that our measures against IPR-infringing goods has been paying off. Meanwhile, as
for the other service we began to verify from this fiscal year, the occurrence rate is quite high.
While we will implement concrete countermeasures through this council, the situation needs
to be improved as rapidly as possible due to the extremely high occurrence rate.

2. A Report from the Guidelines Committee
We discussed how the “Guidelines for the Prevention of Distribution of IPR-Infringing Goodson the Internet” (from here on referred to as the “Guidelines”), which had been revised infiscal 2016, were implemented and what the latest infringement cases were.
Also, on novelties described in the Guidelines annex document, which have been the topicof discussion from the council’s previous meeting, we exchanged opinions to confirm thecontents and their implementation.

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 1“Effectiveness Verification Implementation Method”) at the “Effectiveness Verification
Committee,” which consists of right holders’ personnel who were in charge of removal
requests and their counterparts at Platformers. We have conducted the verification basedon these procedures.
① The range of exhibits for effectiveness verification
For this fiscal year, we decided to examine eight services, including Auction as well as
Flea-Ma services.
② Exhibits for effectiveness verificationFor this fiscal year, as in the previous year, we divided exhibits of goods for effectivenessverification into two categories.
(i) “Exhibits of Infringing Goods”
These consisted of exhibits that could be judged as infringement upon a copyright ortrademark, based on on-screen texts or images, and that would allow right holders torequest Platformers to suspend such exhibits.
(ii) “Exhibits of Goods Having a Probability of Infringement”
These are the exhibits having a probability of infringement but do not directly offer visible
evidence of infringement for platformers to remove such exhibits, following the information
provided (when checked against the Guidelines, etc.). They are categorized into two types.
(1) Exhibits of goods where a right holder can judge the infringement from the texts andimages on screen and removal is possible as long as the right holder makes such a request
to Platformers (“Exhibits of Infringing Goods Not Yet Informed”), or (2) Exhibits of goods
which are undoubtedly considered to be infringing from various factors once a right holder
purchases the goods and makes a confrmation (“Exhibits of Goods Having a High3

Probability of Infringement”).

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’ exhibits.
(i) Group 1 (The average occurrence rate of infringing goods’ exhibits in the last three years
is less than 2 percent): 6 services belonged to this group.
(ii) Group 2 (The average occurrence rate of infringing goods’ exhibits in the last three years
is more than 2 percent but less than 10 percent): 0(iii) Group 3 (The average occurrence rate of infringing goods’ exhibits in the last three years
is more than 10 percent): 2 services belonged to this group.

4(2) Verification Results①Auction(i) “Infringing Goods’ Exhibits” Occurrence Rate2015

Copyright

TrademarkTotal

Group 1# ofverified
items
3,256

Group 2

2016

0.37%

# of
verified
items
2,328

―

―

Group 3―

Group 1

2017

0.04%

# of
verified
items
2,972

―――――――――

943

9.12%

1,399

0.79%

2,147

0.09%

Group 2――――――

Group 3―

――

―

―

―

Group 1

4,199

2.33%

3,727

0.32%

5,119

0.08%

Group 2―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3―

―

―

―

―

―

% of
infringement% ofinfringement% ofinfringement
0.07%(ii) Occurrence Rate of “Exhibits of Goods Having a Probability of Infringement”

2015

Copyright

TrademarkTotal

Group 1# ofverified
items
3,256

Group 2

2016

0.71%

# of
verified
items
2,328

―

―

Group 3―

Group 1

2017

1.98%

# of
verified
items
2,972―――――

―

―

―

―

942

5,93%

1,399

1.00%

2,147

3.02％

Group 2――――――

Group 3――――――

Group 1

4,199

1.88%

3,727

1.61%

5,119

1.64％

Group 2―――

―

―

―

Group 3―

――

―

―

―

% ofprobability

5% ofprobability% ofprobability
0.64%

Changes in Occurrence Rate at Auction markets (Total of Copyright and Trademark)

Changes in Infringing Goods Occurence Rate
(Total of Copyright and Trademarks)
2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
2015

2016

2017

Infringing Goods' Exhibits
Exhibits of Goods Having a Probability of Infringement②Flea-Ma(i) “Infringing Goods’ Exhibits” Occurrence Rate2015

Copyright

Trademark

Total

2016

Group 1# ofverified
items―Group 2―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

242

0.00%

477

26.20%

Group 1

―

―

3,020

1.09%

5,093

1.06%

Group 2―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

400

32.0%

673

4.46%

2,302

56.25%

Group 1

―

―

6,944

0.48%

11,523

0.61%

400

32.0%

915

3.28%

2,779

41.22%% ofinfringement―# ofverified
items
3,924

2017

% of
infringement
0.00%

# of
verified
items
6,430

% of
infringement
0.26%

Group 2Group 3(ii) “Exhibits of Goods Having a Probability of Infringement” Occurrence Rate
62015

Copyright

TrademarkTotal

Group 1# ofverified
items―Group 2

2016―# ofverified
items
3,924

―

―

Group 3―

Group 1

2017

2.80%

# of
verified
items
6,430

―

―

―

―

―

242

0.00%

477

0.00％

―

―

3,020

0.3%

5,093

1.19％

Group 3

400

9.50%

673

4.01%

2,302

3.30％

Group 1

―

―

6,944

1.71%

11.523

1.13％

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

400

9.50%

915

2.00%

2,779

1.65％

% of
probability% ofprobability% ofprobability
1.07%

Group 2

Changes in Occurrence Rate of “of “Exhibits of Goods Having a Probability of Infringement”
at Flea-Ma (Total of Copyright and Trademark)

Changes in “Infringing Goods’ Exhibits” and “Exhibits of GoodsHaving a Probability of Infringement”Occurrence Rate on Flea-Ma
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
2015

2016

2017

“Infringing Goods’ Exhibits” Occurrence Rate Group 1“Infringing Goods’ Exhibits” Occurrence Rate Group 3“Exhibits of Goods Having a Probability of Infringement”Occurrence Rate Group 3“Exhibits of Goods Having a Probability of Infringement”Occurrence Rate Group 27

*For graphics purposes, the occurrence rates for infringed goods’ exhibits and exhibits ofgoods having a probability of infringement are displayed separately.

(3) An Analysis of Verification Results(i) Auction
Both occurrence rates of “Infringing Goods’ Exhibits” and ““Exhibits of Goods Having aProbability of Infringement” are categorized in Group 1. They have been kept extremely lowfor this fiscal year as well.
(ii) Flea-Ma
This fiscal year, we examined six Flea-Ma services. Four among the six are categorized inGroup 1. The rate of infringement occurrence has been extremely low both for “InfringingGoods’ Exhibits ” and “Exhibits of Goods Having a Probability of Infringement.”
Meanwhile, as for the two services which are categorized as Group 3, the occurrence rate at
one of them has been steadily declining both for “Infringing Goods’ Exhibits” and “Exhibits ofGoods Having a Probability of Infringement.” The other service has a high occurrence ratein “Infringing Goods’ Exhibits.” As a result, the occurrence rate of “Infringing Goods’ Exhibits”
rose on the whole compared to the previous fiscal year. We will need to proceed measures
to lower the rate through measures decided by this council.

(4) Others
Some of right holders of trademarks reported that when they examined goods exhibited atseveral online shopping malls and flea market sites which are not included in this report’sverification, they found that the infringement occurrence rate was nearly 100% in some ofthese sites. The right holders therefore cited that it will be a challenge as to how to pursue
platformers who are not participants of the council. We have not included their finding in thisreport because their examination was conducted on a voluntary basis in order to get someknowledge for future talks.

2. A Report from the Guidelines Committee
The Guidelines Committee discussed how “Guidelines to prevent distribution of intellectual
property infringing goods on the Internet” (from now on referred to as “the Guidelines) wereimplemented and the latest infringement examples. The Guidelines were revised in fiscal
2016.
8

It also covered novelty issues which were explained in a separate sheet of the Guidelines. In
last year’s meeting, the council decided to continue to discuss these issues. This year, weexchanged opinions about the contents of the novelty issues and the implementation
measures.
Concerning the problem of distributing so-called “novelty goods” which infringe intellectual
property rights, which is detailed in a separate Annex 1, we talked about whether (1) theyshould be placed as goods for removal or (2) as goods which will be judged “with otherrelated information.” We concluded that these should be positioned as (2) and necessary
measures should be taken in this direction.
We also unified wording of these goods, explained in a separate Annex (3). It wassuggested that the date should be included because the contents may change with thetimes.

3. A Summary of Activities for This Fiscal YearAs we stated so far, 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 begin working on new forms of combatting
infringement. We plan to tackle measures to combat IPR-infringing goods in online shoppingmalls.
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. We hope that thegovernment will support our work to becoming recognized as the de facto standard ofmeasures against IPR-infringing goods on the Internet.

9

Various Statistical Data
■ Number of goods exhibited (Unit: 10,000)▷Total figures from six out of eight 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 ofgoods exhibited.”▷It is difficult to compare figures year-by-year and see a trend because there are fluctuationsin the number of platformers when the data were taken.
■ Number of self-deletions▷Total figures of eight platformers who are official members of the CIPP.
▷Three out of the eight platformers do not keep records of self-deletions by the type ofinfringement. Therefore, their 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.
■ Number of deletion requests from right holders▷Total figures from seven out of eight platformers who are official members of the CIPP.
▷The figures include the deletions of individual items as well as deletions made after
removals of sellers from the service.
▷ Some right holders change services and goods that they focus on during theirsurveillancein order to effectively combat the infringement of intellectual property rights.
Therefore, it is difficult to compare figures year-by-year and demonstrate a trend.

10Principles of the Japanese Approach
1. Both parties (right holders and platform providers) must 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.

11