The Council for Intellectual Property
Protection on Internet (CIPP)
Report for Fiscal Year 2021

May 2022
Council for Intellectual Property Protection on Internet (CIPP)

1

[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 on groupingby the occurrence rate of infringing goods to clearly show the effectiveness of voluntary
efforts by Rights Holders as well as CtoC (customer-to-customer) marketplace operators(from here on referred to as "CtoC Platformers").
In both groups (Group 1 and Group 2), the volume of distribution in the markets has generally
expanded. Considering this current trend, we believe that the effectiveness of verification
measures against infringement through the CIPP continues to be working. In this fiscal year
as

in

the

previous

year,

we

haven’tseen

counterfeit

goods'

transactions

being concentrated in specific services, which used to be one of the characteristics in recent
years.
● For Group 1, we confirmed that the occurrence rate of infringing goods has continued to
be kept at a low level, as in the last fiscal year, as a result of CtoC Platformers’ voluntary
patrols and removals of infringing goods by alerts from Rights Holders. The situation
improved in some of the Group 2 CtoC Platformers which moved to Group 1 this fiscal year,
following measures over the past three years. We believe that this was a major achievement,● As for Group 2, for the past several years, the occurrence rate of infringing goods has
shown a downward trend. However, the rate rose in this fiscal year and the Platformers
remain in the same group. We hope to continue to put more efforts into removals of infringing
goods and other measures so that they will promptly move up to Group 1.
2. A Report from the Guidelines Committee● The committee discussed how the “Guidelines for the Prevention of Distribution ofIntellectual Property Rights-Infringing Goods on the Internet” (from here referred to as the“Guidelines”) are being implemented and what the current situations were.
2

● The committee reviewed the Guidelines’ accompanying document, checked the latest
situation and studied which categories or goods should be added or removed.
[Report]
1. A Report from the Effectiveness Verification Committee(1) The Effectiveness Verification Method
This fiscal year, as in the previous year, the committee, consisted of Rights Holders and theircounterparts at CtoC Platformers, set out the operational procedures (please see theseparate

document

1:“Effectiveness

Verification

Implementation

Method”).

Theeffectiveness verification has been conducted based on these procedures.
① The scope of effectiveness verification
This fiscal year, as in the previous year, we examined eight services, including Auction andFlea-Ma services.
②Types of exhibits

for effectiveness verification

For this fiscal year, as in the previous year, we divided exhibits of goods into two categories.
(i) “Exhibits of Infringing Goods”
Exhibits of the goods that could be judged as infringement of a copyright or a trademark,based on on-screen texts or images, which would allow (Rights Holders) to request CtoC
Platformers to suspend the acceptance of such goods.
(ii) “Exhibits of Goods With a Probability of Infringement”
These are the exhibits of goods that do not directly offer visible evidence of infringement
using the information provided (when checked against the Guidelines, etc.) that would allow
CtoC operators to remove them as infringing goods but have characteristics as in thefollowing: ①Exhibits of goods which are deemed to have infringed a copyright or3

trademark as a result of appraisal of on-screen texts and images by Rights Holders and, if
the Rights Holders make a request for their removal, CtoC Platformers can take action forremoval (“Exhibits of Infringing Goods Without Notice”), or ② exhibits of goods which are
deemed as, without doubt, being infringing goods if the Rights Holders purchase andappraise the goods based on various pieces of information (“Exhibits of Goods With a HighProbability of Infringement”).
③Grouping of CtoC Platformers
We divided CtoC Platformers’ services into Groups 1 to 3 by the occurrence rate of infringing
goods’ exhibits. This aims to further clarify the achievements of voluntary action by Rights
Holders and CtoC Platformers.
(i) Group 1 (The average occurrence rate of infringing goods’ exhibits in the last three years
is less than 2 percent): 7 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): 1 service belonged to this group.
(iii) Group 3 (The average occurrence rate of infringing goods’ exhibits in the last three years
is more than 10 percent): No service belonged to this group.

4(2) Verification Results①Auction(i) Occurrence Rate of “Exhibits of Infringing Goods”

FY2019Copyright

TrademarkTotal

FY2020

FY2021

Group 1# ofverified
items
1,513

% of
OccurrenceRate
0.005%# ofverified
items
1,800

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.28%

# of
verified
items
1,247

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.08%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

2,354

0.25%

2,197

0.18%

4,127

0.02%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

3,867

0.16%

3,997

0.23%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

5,374

0.04%

(ii) Occurrence Rate of “Exhibits of Goods With a Probability of Infringement”

FY2019Copyright

TrademarkTotal

FY20120

FY2020Group 1# ofverified
items
1,513

% of
Occurrence
Rate
3.37%

# of
verified
items
1,800

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.00%

# of
verified
items
1,247

% of
Occurrence
Rate
3.53%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

2,354

1.27%

2,197

0.73%

4,127

2.86％

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

3,867

2.09%

3,997

0.40%

5,374

3.01%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

5

6

②Flea-Ma(i) Occurrence Rate of “Exhibits of Infringing Goods’”

FY2019Copyright

TrademarkTotal

FY2020

FY2021

Group 1# ofverified
items
3,506

% of
Occurrence
Rate
1.06%

# of
verified
items
2,198

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.18%

# of
verified
items
2,813

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.18%

Group 2

705

0.14%

1,301

0.54%

112

0.00%

Group 376

0.00%Group 1

4,389

2.96%

4,742

0.49%

7,069

0.07%

Group 2

1,083

4.16%

2,308

1.78%

1.171

7.17%

Group 3

753

0.93%

Group 1

7,895

2.12%

6,940

0.39%

9,882

0.10%

Group 2

1,788

2.57%

3,609

1.33%

1,283

6.55%

Group 3

829

0.84%

(ii) Occurrence Rate of “Exhibits of Goods With a Probability of Infringement”

FY2019Copyright

TrademarkTotal

FY2020

FY2021

Group 1# ofverified
items
3,506

% of
Occurrence
Rate
2.31%

# of
verified
items
2,198

% of
Occurrence
Rate
3.78%

# of
verified
items
2,813

% of
Occurrence
Rate
2.17%

Group 2

705

5.25%

1,301

0.00%

112

0.00%

Group 376

26.32%

76

26.32%

Group 1

3,837

9.56%

4,742

0.39％

7,069

0.98%

Group 2

1,083

14.59%

2,308

5.16%

1,171

5.64%

Group 3

753

6.11%

753

6.11%

Group 1

7,343

6.10%

6,940

2.10%

9,882

1.32%

Group 2

1,788

10.91%

3,609

3.30%

1,283

5.14%

Group 3

829

7.96%

%

7

8

(3) An Analysis of Verification Results(i) Auction
All Auction services are categorized in Group 1. The occurrence rates of “Exhibits ofInfringing Goods” and ““Exhibits of Goods With a Probability of Infringement” have been kept
extremely low for this fiscal year as well. However, the occurrence rates for both of copyrightas well as the trademark rights of ““Exhibits of Goods With a Probability of Infringement”
began to increase.
(ii) Flea-Ma
This fiscal year, as in previous years, we verified six services.
In five services categorized in Group 1, the occurrence rates of infringement have been very
low for “Exhibits of Infringing Goods” and the occurrence rates of “Exhibits of Goods With a
Probability of Infringement” have declined. One of these services deserves a special mention.
Since the initial fiscal year, it utilized knowledge about infringing goods and know-how as to
how to deal with them through the CIPP. As a result, it was able to advance to the level ofGroup 1 this fiscal year.
One service in Group 2 had a higher occurrence rate of “Exhibits of Infringing Goods” thisfiscal year. This was because it could not cope with the removals of some of the goods due
to an increase in infringing goods. However, they have shown their commitment to proactively
act in removing the goods and other measures. We hope they will continue their efforts.
(iii) Summary
In general, we can confirm that the measures to combat rights-infringing goods through the
CIPP are working because even the Platformers who had had a high ratio of infringing goods
occurrence were able to accumulate and share knowledge about these goods and how todeal with them through the CIPP. As a result, the prevention of the distribution of the infringing
goods through their services drastically improved.
However, as we stated above, figures regarding “Exhibits of Goods With a Probability of9Infringement” at Auction and some of Flea-Ma Platforms increased this fiscal year. Therefore,
we believe that we should urge Rights Holders and CtoC Platformers to continue to share
information, analysis and review, while revising the Guidelines when necessary, in order toimprove the eradication of infringing goods.
(4) Others
In this fiscal year, we reconfirmed the purpose of verification and reviewed “a method ofrecording” in the verification procedure to find out necessary measures for improvement.
Verifying the effectiveness of the implementation is an indicator that shows how proactively
both Rights Holders and Platformers at the CIPP have dealt with infringement eradication.
Therefore, it needs to be conducted by a suitable and effective method which reflects reality.
We should continue to review and renew the existing methods to find new ways which are
more suitable to Platformers’ characteristics and more accurate to understand the realsituation.
Also, using the results of a voluntary survey, we should make a detailed analysis of various
issues at the time and find a way to implement countermeasures. We believe it is important
to continue to make suggestions that will lead to revising the CIPP’s Guidelines and mappingout various measures to stop the distribution of infringing goods.
2. A Summary of Activities of the Guidelines Committee(1) Revision of the Guidelines
As there have been good results by implementing the countermeasures based on the
Guidelines, we agreed that it is desirable that effective verification will be conducted this fiscal
year using the current Guidelines.
(2) Revision of the accompanying document to the Guidelines
The Guidelines’ accompanying document has been updated based on the latest situation
about production by Rights Holders after studying which categories or goods should be
added or removed.
(3) Agendas
10The first meeting: The participants discussed what should be on the agenda at the Guidelines
Committee for this fiscal year. They brought suggestions for revising the accompanying
document on the Guidelines and reviewed which of them should be taken up.
The second meeting: The participants discussed the revisions in the accompanying
document and confirmed the final revision date for the Guidelines as well as theaccompanying document (approved).
3. A Summary of Activities for This Fiscal YearFor this fiscal year, the Guidelines Committee decided to revise the Guidelines’
accompanying document only. At the same time, through the Effectiveness Verification
Committee the effectiveness of the measures was verified.
It was confirmed that we continued to bring the occurrence rate of infringed goods in Group
1 at a low rate by promoting a “Japanese approach” in which both Rights Holders and CtoC
Platformers respect each other’s positions and collaboratively stand up against infringers.
On the other hand, we saw a rise in occurrence rates of some of ““Exhibits of Goods With a
Probability of Infringement” in Auction and Flea-Ma platforms that belong to Group 2.
Therefore, we need to consider various measures such as the strengthening of cooperation
between Rights Holders and Platformers as well as reviewing the Guidelines when necessary.
According to the Effectiveness Verification Committee, the Rights Holders and Platformers
have already discussed the above situation regarding specific goods and each implementing
necessary measures. We expect that the occurrence rates of the relevant ““Exhibits of Goods
With a Probability of Infringement” will decline.
Also, as in the previous fiscal year, the number of self-removals of goods by Platformers
increased in comparison to 2 years ago.1 We believe that the infringement occurrence rates
were kept low due to implementation of proactive efforts such as removals by Platformers.

1 We should note that the number of removals for each fiscal year cannot be simply compared because thenumber of businesses which release the figures and the number of members vary each year.

11

On May 1, 2022, the law to protect consumer interests in transactional digital platforms was
put into force. According to the law’s article 3, it is obligatory for each BtoC (business toconsumers) Platformers to make their best efforts to protect consumers and release theirmeasures to the public. Based on this law, a government-and-private council was set up. We
believe that the council will monitor how the measures are implemented. Taking advantageof the enactment of the law, the CIPP agreed to work on BtoC Platformers which have not
yet participated in the CIPP and share information to review concrete measures with an aim
to further promote infringing goods’ countermeasures in the BtoC Platforms.
The CIPP has been promoting proactive efforts to prevent distribution of intellectual property
infringing goods through dialogue between Rights Holders and Platformers which include
BtoC transactional platformers to which the law is applied, as well as other transactional
platformers.
For example, Rights Holders and Platformers cooperate and discuss issues about each typeof intellectual property infringing goods. This will be reflected in the Guidelines whennecessary and proactive patrols based on the Guidelines by Platformers is being improved.
The effectiveness verification results support this cooperation, which has a very importantmeaning as a scheme amongst private companies to protect consumers.
In the future, when the relevant government ministries and agencies consider policies toprotect consumers, we hope that the CIPP’s efforts by private organizations will be used asa reference to build an environment for consumer protection.
We will continue to publish outcome of the CIPP’s work and plan to discuss how to deal withany new type of infringement.
Various Statistical Data
■ Number of goods exhibited (Unit: 10,000)▷Total figures for fiscal 2019 and 2020 were of seven out of eight official members of the
CIPP.
12

▷Total figures for fiscal 2021 were of seven out of nine official members of the CIPP.
▷To calculate, we measured the number of items on offer at a certain time on a certain day
in December of the relevant year and then calculated the daily average as “the total numberof goods exhibited.”▷It is difficult to compare figures year-by-year and see a trend because the number ofPlatformers investigated differs at the time when the data were taken.
■ Number of self-deletions▷Total figures for fiscal 2019 and 2020 were of seven out of eight official members of the
CIPP.
▷Total figures for fiscal 2021 were of seven out of nine official members of the CIPP.
▷One out of the seven platformers does not keep records of self-deletions by the type of
infringement in fiscal 2019. Therefore, their figures were added only to the total figures.
▷As in the case of the table about the number of goods exhibited, it is difficult to compare
figures year-by-year and discover a trend.
■ Number of deletion requests from Rights Holders▷Total figures for fiscal 2019 and 2020 were of seven out of eight official members of the
CIPP.
▷Total figures for fiscal 2021 were of eight out of nine official members of the CIPP.
▷The figures include the deletions of individual items as well as deletions made after removalsof sellers from the service.
▷ Some Rights Holders change services and goods that they focus on during their13

surveillance in order to effectively 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 (Rights Holders and Platformers) 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, to protect not only their own interests but also
the interests of consumers among others.
2. Rights Holders must be made aware that they should enforce their own rights, which
are not automatically protected.
3. Platformers should be aware that they should make active efforts to protect intellectual
property rights for the development of a sound Internet.
4. Both parties must be made aware during the promotion of countermeasures that theyshould agree on the equal importance of the protection of intellectual property rights andthe securement of users’ freedom for business and the secrecy of communication, andthat they should take actions not to undermine the value of either aspect of business.

14