CHAPTER 2. THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF TRADEMARK LAW
SECTION 1: THE HISTORY OF TRADEMARK LAW
I. Pre-history
A "trademark for commercial goods" necessarily requires commercial goods; insocieties based on the barter system, therefore, there was no basis for "trademarks forgoods."1 Trademarks not only identify goods, but create a distinction between goods
from various sources. Consequently, a competitive relationship exists, and an overly
simplistic mark is insufficient to be a trademark. The trade of goods came into practicelong ago, and the use of trademarks is thought to have evolved from that.
The origin of trademarks can be traced back as far as the beginning of the circulation of
goods. The history of marks is nearly as old as the histories of mankind and religion.
Scientists have come across excavated artifacts from places such as ancient Egypt withvarious symbols carved thereon for religious and superstitious reasons. "Potters marks"
appeared in relics left from the Greek and Roman periods and were used to identify the
maker (potter) of a particular vessel). Among those who specialize in researching thecultural heritage of marks, the studies surrounding "potters marks" are famous. It would
be difficult, however, to say that these marks are trademarks in the sense of the modern
meaning.
Over time, different methods of identification and distinction developed. Loved ones
and pets were given names. "Proprietary marks" (in the form of a name or symbol)
were affixed to goods to enable one person to distinguish their own possessions fromthose of others. Craftsmen applied their names, unique drawings, or simple inscriptions
to identify goods they created. Even though these marks surely helped in distinguishinggoods, it is difficult to say that these marks were trademarks with distinctiveness in themodern sense of the word. Symbols on goods used in ancient Rome and other countries
near the Mediterranean sea had similar characteristics to the trademarks of today.
Because this ancient region is considered to be the first to actively circulate goods, it is
widely thought that trademarks evolved in response to the emergence of a society inwhich goods circulate in commerce. However, even in those days, a trademark system
based on property rights did not yet exist.
Around the 10th century, a mark called a "merchants mark,"2 appeared, and symbols
among traders and merchants increased significantly. These marks, which can beconsidered one kind of "proprietary mark," essentially were used to prove ownershiprights of goods whose owners were missing due to shipwrecks, pirates, and otherdisasters. Even now, in every part of the world, horses, sheep, and other animals arestill branded with a mark identifying the owner. In Japan, a symbol is affixed to lumberthat is tied onto a raft and sent down a river to its mouth. These types of marks arereminiscent of the "merchant's mark" of the past.
1

Hereinafter, "trademark for goods" will be referred to as "trademarks," and "trademark of services"
will be referred to as "service marks"
2
Merchants marks were simple and formed merely linear designs, for example.

1

In guilds of the middle ages, craftsmen and merchants affixed marks to goods in order
to distinguish their work from the makers of low quality goods and to maintain trust in
the guilds. These marks, known as "production marks," served to punish the
manufacturers of low quality goods for not meeting the guild's standards and tomaintain monopolies by the guild's members. These production marks helped
consumers to identify and assign responsibility for inferior products, such as, goods
short in weight, goods comprised of poor quality materials, and goods made withinferior craftsmanship.
Because these marks were affixed out of compulsion or obligation, rather than one's
own self-interest, they also became known as "police marks" (polizeizeichen) or"responsibility marks" (pflichtzeichen). They acted not only to distinguish between
sources of goods, but to serve as an indicator of quality as well. While modern marks
work to ensure the quality and superiority of certain goods, the obligatory marks served
to uncover defective goods. "Responsibility marks" were more burdensome than real
property, and could not be changed easily once the mark had been adopted.
Furthermore, it is thought that this type of mark did no more than simply guarantee
minimum quality. Finally, these symbols were different from modern marks in thatthey emerged to benefit the guilds, and were not for the benefit of the production markowner.
From the Middle Ages, through "police marks" and "responsibility marks," modern
trademarks slowly developed as the Industrial Revolution sparked the advent of what is
now modern-day capitalism. Gradually, the guild systems disintegrated, and freebusiness was established. Marks began to actively identify the source of goods rather
than obligatory guild membership. About this time, special criminal laws protecting
trademarks were also developed out of early forgery, counterfeiting, and fraud laws.
Civil protection was gradually and systematically established against those who would
use another's mark with out permission ("infringers").
II. France
In France, the "Factory, Manufacture and Workplace Act" of April 20, 1803, (Article16) is internationally noted for establishing a system which made it a crime to pass off
another's seal as one's own. Further, the Criminal Acts of 1810 (Article 142) and 1824
(Article 433) made it a punishable crime to abuse the name of others or wrongly use thenames of production areas.
Even this system was not nearly as advanced as the comprehensive trademark legal
structure as we see today. On June 23, 1857 France established the first comprehensive
trademark system in the world with the "Manufacture and Goods Mark Act," atrademark deposit system that embodied theories of both use-based and examinationbased 3 trademark registration systems. Until the passage of that Act, France had
employed an exclusively use-based system. In fact, in France's old colonial territories,
the influence of this system continues. This law was partially amended in 1890 and
1944, and was repealed in 1964. On December 31, 1964, a registration-based system
3

Examination systems are not substantively based.

2was established4 in which the commencement of trademark rights was conditioned on"deposit" (filing) and a loss of rights occurred through failure to use the mark. The
current law was established in January, 1991 and included concepts such as theprotection of famous trademarks, three-dimensional marks, sound marks, and an
application publication system, following the lead of the European Community ("EC").
III. England
Under the English common law system, fraud and the improper use of marks known as
passing off" an action for which remedies were contemplated that continue today. A
trademark equity law was added eventually to supplement common law protection, but
England did not establish a comprehensive system for trademark protection until 1905,
nearly 50 years after the establishment behind France. Prior to the 1905 Act, "TheMerchandise Marks Act," which focused on provisions dealing with deceptive
indications, was passed on August 7, 1862. The "Trade Mark Registration Act" wasalso passed in 1875. The 1905 Act was amended in 1919 and 1937, until a new Act was
passed in 1938. This Act fundamentally changed the system in many ways, permitting
registration based on intent-to-use, creating an examination-based process, and creating
an application publication system. It equipped the English system with advances that
surpassed the trademark law of France at that time. Consequently, U.S. and Japanesetrademark laws were greatly influenced by the 1938 Act.
England's 1938 Trademark Act contained novel concepts such as "associatedtrademarks," a consent-to- use system, a defensive mark system, and non-claiming rightsystem. Further, unlike U.S. trademark law at that time5, even without actual use, anapplicant who had a "bona fide intent to use" a mark could gain registration. On theother hand, registrations under the British law, unlike registrations in Japan or Germany,
would only provide a presumption of trademark ownership, without establishing a"fixed right." In England, on October 1, 1986, a service mark registration system wasincorporated (The 1986 Act). By 1995, England, the U.S., Germany, France and Japan,
the so-called G5 ("Group of 5") were all utilizing a service mark registration system.
Almost all industrialized countries have a service mark registration system today.
England, following an EC directive, expanded the scope of its trademark subject matter,amending its trademark requirements on October 10, 1994. In addition to this, theassociated trademarks system and the defensive mark system leftover from the 1938 Act
were abolished. The Japanese associated trademarks system and defensive mark systemwere largely constructed out of the influence of English law, but, although theassociated trademarks system was abolished under the 1996 amendments, the defensive
mark system remains.
IV. Germany
The Trademark Protection Law (Gesetz der Markenschutz), enacted on November 30,
1874, is considered to be the first German trademark law. It put into place a nonsubstantive trademark registration and examination system. A later statute, the4Service marks were included in the 1964 law.
Until 1988, the U.S. trademark system was purely use-based. In 1988, the U.S. established an
intent-to-use registration system as well.

53

Trademark Protection Law (Gesetz zum Schutz der Warenbezeichungen) of May 12,1894, followed principles of an examination-based system that was substantively based.
Germany's 1936 amendment put the law in the form of the modern trademark law(Warenzeichengesetz); however, there was still no publication requirement upon
application. Also, a trademark could be registered only when there was no objection
raised by a prior registrant upon receipt of a notice about the application from the Patent
Office. In 1957, the registration system adopted the publication requirement upon
application. In 1967, the law underwent a major amendment that introduced a usebased examination system. Registered trademarks that had not been in use for morethan five years were canceled. Service marks were included by amendment in 1979.
The German unification on October 3, 1990 triggered the Industrial Property Right
Expansion Law that was enacted on May 1, 1992.
Prior to the 1995 amendment, German trademark law was different from Japanesetrademark law in that when the registrant who filed first did not object, the subsequent
application was also registered, resulting in a double registration. Another difference
was Germany's use of the opposition system, under which an examination to determine
whether an applicant's trademark was similar to a registered trademark was conducted
only when there was an objection made in response to publication. The Trademark Law
enacted on January 1, 1995 was a major amendment to the law, increasing the numberof articles to 164. The present German trademark law solidified certain concepts, suchas: permitting the assignment of trademarks; the expansion of the subject matter
available for trademark registration; and a post-registration opposition system. After
1995, Germany adopted a system that allowed oppositions to be made subsequent totrademark registration, contrary to the trademark system in Japan. Early German
trademark law adopted the registration system, an examination system, and apublication requirement for an application. Japanese trademark law is considered to be
most influence by English and German trademark laws.
Additionally, German trademark law has a regulation to provide protection for wellknown shapes and indications (Ausstattung) that is equivalent to protection provided
under Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Law. Shapes in Germany are protectedby both the Trademark Law and the Unfair Competition Prevention Law (German
Unfair Competition Prevention Law, art. 25; Trademark Law, art. 3).
V. The United States
American trademark law was initially influenced strongly by English trademark law. In
the U.S., various avenues are available for seeking a remedy. The state courts will
adjudicate based on state registration or common law right; the federal courts will
adjudicate based on federal registration. The trademarks in the U.S. that are owned by
Japanese companies are primarily federally registered trademarks.
On July 8, 1870, the Federal Trade Mark Act was enacted as the first U.S. federal law toprotect trademarks. In 1879, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law was
unconstitutional due to a conflict with the provision on patents in the U.S. Constitution.6
6

The U.S. federal government has the power to regulate the military, foreign affairs, and postal

4

It was therefore abolished. In its place, a trademark law was enacted on March 3, 1881that targeted trademarks used in interstate commerce (and in the commerce with Indian
tribes) based on the interstate commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution (art. 1, sec. 8, cl.
3). This law, however, was unable to accommodate the development of the American
economy and underwent a major amendment in 1905. It underwent further partial
revisions occasionally during subsequent years.
Upon the enactment of the Lanham Act on July 5, 1946, American trademark law cameto rank equally with English or German trademark laws. The Act was named after acongressman who had devoted himself to its creation in accordance with American
traditions. The Lanham Act is similar to English trademark law because it adopted usebased principles as its foundation. The Act, however, put much more emphasis on use
than the English law did initially, requiring not merely an intention to use the mark, but
an actual use of the mark in order for the mark to be registered. This emphasis,
however, was later altered in response to changes made internationally.
In response to international pressure, the House of Representatives passed anamendment to the Act on October 19, 1988, and the Senate approved it the following
day. It was signed into law on November 16, 1988. The amended Act still requires useof a mark; however, an intent to use is now sufficient to apply for trademark registration.
The American trademark law also differs from English trademark law by protecting
marks under state trademark law in addition to the federal trademark law.7
The Lanham Act adopted the principle of examination and included a publication
requirement for applications. Further, it was the first United States trademark law
which approved the registration of service marks.
SECTION 2: HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF JAPANESE TRADEMARKLAW
I. Pre-History
Considering that a trademark, which serves as a mark of goods, is a necessity for thecirculation of goods in society, it is easy to imagine that much of the trademark
development discussed in section one also took place in Japan. For instance,
Taihouritsurei of 701 A.D. set forth laws on indications. Indication were a systemdesigned to regulate and prohibit the mass production of articles of inferior quality.
Thus, the character of an indication was far from that of a modern-day trademark.
Literature tells us that the fraudulent use of trademarks has existed since olden times. It
is documented that there was a punishment for trademark infringement in the
Muromachi period and also that there were regulations on trademarks within the tradeassociations Za and Kabunakama. These measures, however, were still primitive inservices, among others. However, art. 1, section 8, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution states only thatpatents and copyrights fall under the federal power, and does not mention trademarks. Thus, theSupreme Court argued that the federal government did not have the power to regulate trademarks.
7
As stated earlier, there are trademark cases based on common law, state trademark registrations,and federal trademark law.

5

nature and are nothing more than pre-history from today's standpoint. The uniform
system of trademark was first created in the Meiji period (1868-1912).
II. Period Up to The Enactment of the Trademark Regulations of 1884
From 1600-1868, Japan existed in a self-imposed isolation under the Sakoku
government that ultimately left it crippled relative to the technology and advancementof the west. When the reform government, the Meiji, took over, a primary focus was
Japan's economic and technological recovery and re-entry in to the market. The reform
agenda of Japan was built mainly on two pillars: reform of the country's industry andrebuilding the strength of the military. 8 To fulfill these political measures, it wasnecessary to establish industrial property rights, such as patent and trademark laws.
Korekiyo Takahashi, who later became the first chief of the Trademark Registration
Office and the Patent Office, was the central figure responsible for the formulation ofJapanese trademark law. In 1876 and 1878, trademark regulations were drafted
consisting of nine articles. However, the votes on whether to pass these regulations
were split and preparation had to be stopped for a time. In 1881, a change came about
with a trademark infringement case involving the export of a special paper for silk
production. That case triggered the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Law (now called
the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry), which had opposed the laws, to makea statement urging the enactment of the trademark regulations. The Osaka Chamber ofCommerce and Law had already submitted its approval in 1880, and so a draft of the
trademark regulations was submitted from the Minister of Finance to the Prime Ministeron February 4, 1881.
This was passed one year prior to the enactment of the copyright law promulgated on
April 18, 1885, and it was Japan's first draft of regulations on industrial property rights.
It features the registration system, and from that time on, Japan has followed theprinciple of "first-to-file."
III. From Trademark Regulations to the Trademark Law of 1921
(1) Trademark Regulations of 1884
The first Japanese trademark law was enacted in the form of trademark regulations in
1884, and consisted of 24 articles and additional rules. It was simple, but contained all
the fundamental systems that shaped modern Japanese trademark law, including theprinciples of registration, "first-to-file," first use, "one trademark, one application,"publication, an effective period of registration, application for the renewal of registeredtrademarks, and the classification of goods by type. The 1884 law required theapplicant to submit his application to the Ministry for Agriculture and Commerce via a
local agency; however, after an 1888 amendment, the applicant was allowed to send theapplication directly to the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce.

8This agenda was called Fukoku kyouhei, which translates into "Enrich the country, strengthen the
military."6

(2) Trademark Regulations of 1888
As a result of Korekiyo Takahashi's mission trip to investigate trademark systems
abroad, new regulations were proclaimed on December 18, 1888. 9 The regulations,consisting of 28 articles, became effective on February 1, 1889 and were designed tocreate conforminty with Patent Regulations regarding examination and judgment. The
1888 regulations incorporated new concepts such as special conspicuousness as well.
(3) Trademark Law of 1899
In 1899, Japan signed the Paris Convention. As a result, amendment of the law on
industrial property rights became necessary. The Trademark Law was proclaimed on
March 1, 1899 and became effective on July 1 of that year. The new law established asystem allowing agents to act on behalf of individuals overseas and regulations
concerning priority. The Law also permitted an applicant to appeal the result of a
trademark examination to Daishinin, the highest court under the Meiji constitution.
(4) Trademark Law of 1909
To accommodate industrial development in Japan and to respond to requests forinternational protection of industrial property rights, the "four laws" on Industrial
Property Rights were amended at the same time. This amendment played a role as afoundation for the law in 1921 by adjusting the registration requirements and thebenefits to trademark owners and third parties. It also introduced a system to protect
well-known trademarks, a system to allow "associated trademarks," a system to cancel
unused trademarks, and a system that allowed appeals against examination results.
IV. Trademark Law of 1921
The number of trademark applications jumped as Japan underwent industrial
development. As a result, the law of 1909 required an amendment. The most extensive
amendment to the trademark law took place in 1921. It was proclaimed on April 30,
1921 and went into force on January 11, 1922. Although small amendments of the law
were made in the years 1929, 1934, 1938, 1947, 1948, 1949, and 1951, the law of 1921
remained in effect until the present trademark law was passed in 1959.
The Trademark Law of 1921 ranked equally with the trademark laws of the West. Thislaw adopted the system requiring publication and allowing oppositions to be filed
before trademark registration. It also empowered the trademark office to issue noticesof refusal. It abolished the re-examination system, but permitted appeals against
judgments of examination, including appeals to the highest court. Also, the law
permitted collective trademarks, the non-claiming right system, and the trademark
registration cancellation system. Today, the Trademark Law of 1921 is still well-known.
It is often quoted as "the former law" and compared with the present law.
V. Present Law
9At the same time, the Patent Regulations and Design Regulations were also enacted.

7

As the Japanese government dealt with economic reconstruction after the Second World
War, it continued deliberating on amending the industrial property rights system by
establishing an inquiry commission. The commission submitted a report on December
24, 1956 that became the foundation for the draft of the law. The law came into
existence in the thirty-first Diet in February 1959, promulgated as Law No. 127, on
April 13, 1959, and went into force on April 1, 1960.
The new law contained many changes setting it apart from the former law. It definedterms such as "trademark," "registered trademark," "mark" and "use." It abolished thesystem for collective trademarks, the system limiting the scope of color trademarks, thenon-claiming right system, and the scope of right confirmation. Other notablecharacteristics of this law included establishing as a requirement that a trademark be
distinguishable from other marks, shortening the duration of the trademark term from 20
years to 10 years, and creating a system under which the trademark could be freelytransferred and used with consent. The law also made registration a requirement inorder to set up or transfer trademark rights, created a defensive mark system, created asystem to judge trademarks, and divided trademarks into thirty-four categories thatpartially matched the international classification system by not classifying goods
according to their contents, but by identifying goods using the thirty-four categories.
Most of the regulations mentioned above are considered appropriate today; however,there are some that have been amended in response to criticism.
VI. Partial Amendments to Trademark Law
The present trademark law, which was enacted in 1959, went through numerous partial
amendments until 1975, when the law was amended in its entirety. The amendments
came about as a result of: the abolition of the Petition Law and the Special Law for
Administrative Cases, the enactment of the Complaints against Administrative Acts
Inquiries Act and the Administrative Litigation Act (through Law No. 140 of 1962 andthe amendment in Law No. 161 of 1962), the introduction of electronic calculators forwork related to trademark registration (Law No. 148 of 1964) and lastly, Japan's joiningof the Lisbon Treaty and the country's application of arts. 6-7 (regulations on applying
for registration by using an agent and on other matters).
Additional amendments followed, such as an amendment to adjust the articles of thelaw (Law. No. 81 of 1965) and amendment of the Patent Law pertaining to an expedited
publication and examination systems, as well as legal technical procedures inTrademark Law corresponding to many in the Patent Law (Law No. 91 of 1970). The
biggest amendment, however, was made as a result of a movement towards
international norms, and to deal with the accumulation of unprocessed trademark
applications (with the focus on strengthening the obligation to use trademarks) in 1975.
Between the years of 1972 and 1973, the number of trademark applications reachedabout 200,000 and the degree of accumulation of unprocessed applications increased
dramatically. This led to a delay in the examination of filed applications, the processoften taking many years from the time the applicant decided to use the mark as a8

trademark in developing goods to the time of the actual registration of the mark.
Consequently, the delay decreased the merit of registering marks, the fundamental roleof which is to ensure stable use of a mark. Japan lagged behind other countries inprocessing applications, even though it was assumed that Japan would join theTrademark Registration Treaty (TRT), which required its members to complete theexamination process within 15 months of the submission of the application. The
number of registrations piled up and well over half were unused registered trademarks.
Moreover, a vicious circle developed as companies prepared themselves for developing
new goods by stocking unused trademarks in light of the delay in the examination
process that led to further delay in examination. To respond to this problem, a small"trademark committee" was established within the Industrial Property Right Inquiry
Commission's Division for the amendment of the system. Based on the committee's
report, the Industrial Property Right Inquiry Commission submitted a report to the
Minister of Commerce and Industry on December 18, 1974. The result of thissubmission is the amended law (Law. No. 46) of June 25, 1975, enacted on January 1,
1976.
The main objective of the amended law was to eliminate the increased backlog ofapplications. The amended law focused on strengthening the registrant's duty to use his
trademark by setting out a requirement for the applicant to record his business in theapplication (Trademark Rule, art. 1); by assigning the burden of proving non-use in acancellation proceeding for non-use (art. 50, sec. 2); and by examining the usage of aregistered trademark at the time of its renewal (art. 19, sec. 2, cl. 2 and sec. 3). In
revising the "Trademark Examination Guidelines" (September 1977), the operation of
the trademark system was also improved, by for example, increasing the range ofsimilarity of trademarks and of goods.
VII. Introduction of Service Mark Registration System
In Japan, the concept of service mark registration was first considered during theprocess of amending the law in 1921. So by the time the Inquiry Commission began
making amendments to the industrial property rights system at the Patent Office inNovember 1950, service mark registration had already been evaluated. At that time,
however, it was considered too soon to adopt a system to register service marks.
However, as industrialized countries adopted the service mark registration system one
after the other, the Japanese government inquired about it at the Industrial Property
Right Inquiry Commission in June 1990. The government received its answer on
February 5, 1991 and an amendment to the trademark law introducing service markregistration was established on April 25, 1991 (Law No. 65, 1991). It was passed on
May 2 and made effective on April 1, 1991. Thus, 40 years passed between the time
when the idea of service marks were first discussed to the time that they are introduced
into Japanese Industrial Property law.
The primary reason this introduction took a long time to materialize is because theUnfair Competition Prevention Law protected service marks. Additionally, there were
only a few strong requests for the protection of service marks from the majority ofcompanies in the service industry. Moreover, the Patent Office had to come up with a9measure to handle the increased number of applications due to the introduction ofservice mark registrations.
Still, the in years leading up to the amendment, several factors contributed to the push
for service mark protection. First, transactions in the service industry had been showing
a tendency towards increase and development both nationally and internationally.
Second, the goodwill of service marks had not been protectible except through the
Unfair Competition Prevention Law. Third, most major countries in the world had
adopted the service mark registration system, and from the viewpoint of international
harmonization Japan's delay particularly began to stand out. Finally, within Japan,
requests for service mark registration by those in relevant industries had became
stronger. The existence of these circumstances, among other things, resulted in theamendment of the law, resolving a long standing industry concern.
VIII. The Amendment of 1996
The Amendment of 1996 was established on June 4, 1996 and was proclaimed as Law
No. 68 of 1996 on June 12, 1996. The amendment was designed to cope with both
Japanese internal and external issues and included measures to tackle unused registeredtrademarks and the need to grant trademark rights quickly. It was also aimed at joining
the Trademark Law Treaty, the purpose of which was to simplify formalities andbecome a member of international harmonization.
The Amendment of 1996 consisted of many substantive changes. 1). A multi-classapplication system was introduced to bring Japan into compliance with the Trademark
Law Treaty.
2). The requirement that an applicant enter his type of business in the application wasremoved.
3). The "associated mark" system was abolished, in an effort to tackle the problem ofunused trademarks.
4). A system was established, allowing objections to be raised after a trademark was
registered. This change was implemented to respond to the demand for the speedy grantof trademark rights.
5). The implementation of a standard lettering system.
6). The new amendments forbade the filing of applications with fraudulent intent, in aneffort to protect famous trademarks.
7). The creation of the three-dimensional trademark system in Japan.
8). A collective trademarks system was adopted.
9). The system for explaining the designated goods was revised.
The articles on trademark regulations set forth in the Paris Convention wereincorporated into Japanese law by adding the words, "member countries of theTrademark Law Treaty," 10 among other things, to the relevant regulations in theJapanese trademark law and Unfair Competition Prevention Law. Some of the featuresof the Paris Convention Treaty regarding reciprocity that were incorporated into
10

This language was added to meet the reciprocity requirement of the Paris Convention, whereby
signatory countries had to extend protection to the citizens of other signatory countries.

10Japanese Trademark Law via the 1996 amendments included: art. 4 (priority right), art.
6, sec. 3 (protection of a country's symbols, among others); art. 6, sec. 7 (protection of aperson with the right to a trademark when his agent or representative applies
fraudulently); and art. 11 (temporary protection for goods when exhibited at aninternational expo). Japan' 1996 amendments ensured that it would comply with those
relevant regulations regarding the other signatory countries. The amendments wereenacted on the day the Treaty took effect in Japan (Amended additional rule, art. 1., sec.
1).
IX. Amendment of 1998
The Amendment of 1998 concerned corrections on structure and formalities and wasminor in nature. Significant amendments were made to the Patent Law and the Design
Law; however, as far as trademarks were concerned, only rules regarding the trademark
registration certificate were changed. The change allowed issuance of a "certificate oftrademark registration" and a "certificate of defensive mark registration" (art. 71, sec. 2,
cl. 1) and guaranteed re-issuance of these certificates (art. 71, Sec. 2, cl 2).
X. Amendment of 1999
To harmonize the system of industrial property rights with international standards,
Japan amended its laws in 1999 to enable a faster acquisition of the trademark right.
The time period for submitting request for examination was shortened and remedial
measures in cases of trademark infringement were broadened. At the same time thatthese amendments were made, adjustments were also made to the formalities involved
in application for an international trademark registration, in an effort to implement the
Madrid Protocol.
Japan made amendments in several areas. It amended its trademark law to facilitate afaster trademark examination. The amendment also smoothed out the process of dispute
resolution over infringement of rights by implementing information exchanges on
infringement cases between the courts and the Patent Office. To ease the difficulty ofproving the infringement of rights, the discovery-of-documents system was expanded.
The system of calculating monetary damages from infringement was simplified, and asystem of using experts to help in the determination and calculation of damages (subject
to judicial approval) was implemented. Punishment for crimes of fraud and false
markings was increased. Also, to assist adjudicators, an "expert's opinion" system was
set up.
The central aspect of the amendment, however, was to establish article 7-2 in the
trademark law. The article regulates the international trademark registration process
through the Japanese trademark registration system, with the aim of carrying out the
Madrid Protocol for international harmonization in the industrial property rights system.
Moreover, in order to provide early protection of trademarks, Japan established asystem that enabled the applicant to obtain a certain amount of protection for his
trademark prior to its registration. It also introduced a system which granted an
applicant the right to seek damages prior to trademark registration (art. 13-2). The

11

Madrid Protocol states that, by obtaining international trademark registration from theWIPO International Bureau, a registrant secures trademark protection in the designatedmember states in advance. A trademark registered under the Protocol has the same
effect as a trademark filed at a designated member state government office, startingfrom the time it is registered with WIPO. The designated member state has the optionof rejecting trademarks registered with WIPO, but is required to submit a notice ofrejection within 12 or 18 months. If it fails to submit the notice, the registeredtrademark will be considered effective in the designated member state from the day it
was registered with WIPO, for the same duration as domestically registered trademarks.
The Madrid Protocol was adopted as an independent agreement from the Madrid
Agreement in June 1989, so that as many countries as possible could join theAgreement. It became effective in December 1995 and has been administered sinceApril 1996. There are 37 member states as of June 1999, including the United Kingdom,
Germany, France and China. It is expected that there will be many others joining theProtocol. Under these circumstances, Japan decided to become a member also.
The Law of 1999, having the objective of implementing the articles of the MadridProtocol, was deliberated in the 145th regular Diet. It was passed and established on
May 7, 1999, and was promulgated as Law Number 41 on May 14, 1999. The
enforcement date of the amended law was set to coincide with the day that the MadridProtocol took effect in Japan, January 1, 2000. The law was amended by introducing asystem of publication and establishing a system for granting the right to seek monetarydamages prior to trademark registration, among others.
One additional, much desired revision was also under the 1999 Amendments thatenabled the applicant to pay the registration fee and, at the same time, lower the number
classes designated in the application (article 68, 2 → article 68, 40).
SECTION 3 INTERNATIONAL TREND OF TRADEMARK LAW
I. The International Nature of Trademark Law
Even though trademarks are regulated by each country independently, because goods
travel beyond country borderlines and bear trademarks, trademark law has international
implications. In Japan, the first trademark regulations were enacted in 1884, prior to theenactment of the Japanese Constitution and civil law. The reason behind enacting sucha law was not only because of the Meiji government's commitment to strengthen Japan's
industry and military, but also because of the strong international influence exerted by
the countries that had signed commercial treaties with Japan. They demanded thatJapan regulate trademarks. However, most people consider 1899 to be the start ofinternationalization of Japanese trademark law, when Japan joined the Industrial
Property Rights Protection Alliance Treaty, also known as the Paris Convention.
The Paris Convention was concluded in 1883 and its interpretation was supplemented in
Madrid.
It further underwent several amendments in 1900 (Brussels), 1911
(Washington, D.C.), 1925 (The Hague), 1934 (London), 1958 (Lisbon), and 1967
(Stockholm). It was revised in 1979 to the form as we know it today. Japan joined the12treaty in 1899. Japan became a member of the treaty amended in Lisbon in 1965, andthe treaty amended in Stockholm in 1975.
II. Paris Convention (relating to the protection of industrial property)
The treaty will not be discussed exhaustively here; commentaries on the treaty should
be consulted to obtain additional information. The following, however, is a list of the
major relevant articles of the treaty:* member states protect the trademark rights and other industrial property rights of othermember states (art. 2);* each member state must maintain the fundamental principle that citizens of othermember states receive the same protection as its own citizens (art. 2); and* member states must recognize the assertion of priority rights (art. 4).
The articles that are particularly relevant to the trademark law include:* remedies for cases in which registered trademarks are not used, including sanctions(art. 5);* the independent status of the trademark law (art. 6);* protection of well-known trademarks (art. 6, sec. 2);* adjustment regulations on the transfer of trademark rights (art. 6, sec. 4);* regulations on trademarks registered in a foreign country (art. 6, sec. 5, the so called"telle quelle" trademark system)* protection of service marks (art. 6, sec, 6);* regulations controlling applications for trademark registration made by an agent,among others, without permission of the applicant (art. 6, sec. 7);* removal of trademark registration limitations based on the disposition of the goods(art. 7);* protection of collective trademarks (art. 7, sec. 2);* control of the importation of counterfeit goods (art. 9);* control of fraudulent indications of country origin (art. 10);* prohibition of acts of unfair competition (art. 10, sec. 2);* legal measures to prevent counterfeit goods and others (art. 10, sec. 3); and* temporary protection of goods exhibited in international expos (art. 11)11.
There are 151 member states as of January 15, 1999 (WIPO, Industrial Property and
Copyright, January 1999), demonstrating that most major countries in the world havejoined the treaty.
However, because the Paris Convention requires a super majority, it has a tendency tolag behind current developments. The Trademark Registration Treaty by the WIPO is
more up-to-date. The Trademark Registration Treaty, or "TRT," of 1973 became
effective in February 1980. Because of each member country's circumstances,
particularly those of the United States, the TRT is truly functional. Japan has not yet
11

For details, see: Ladas Law on International Industrial Property Right, by S.P. Ladas; Toyosaki andNakayama, co-supervisors.

13

ratified it either.12 The Trademark Law Treaty ("TLT"), however, of 1997 is even morecurrent and was ratified in Japan on April 1, 1997. The WIPO encourages each county
to become a member of the Madrid Protocol of 1989, a treaty designed to ease theprocess of joining the Madrid Agreement, which delineates the regulations on
international registration of trademarks. The Trademark Law Amendment of 1996 in
Japan was a product of two considerations. The first was the desire to fulfill the duty ofthe trademark treaty as a member state. The second was the desire to take the MadridProtocol into consideration, despite the fact that Japan has not become a member andhas no obligation to do so.
III. Special Agreements
The member states of the Paris Convention may become signatories to special
agreements on the protection of industrial property protection provided they do notconflict with the Paris Convention treaty (art. 19).
The major special agreements reached include:① The Madrid Agreement for the prevention of false or misleading indications ofcountry origin (1891, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958 Lisbon amendment);② The Madrid Agreement on international registration of production marks ortrademarks (1891, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967 Stockholm supplemental amendment);③ An agreement on international classification of goods and services for trademark
registration (The Nice Agreement, 1957);④ The Lisbon Agreement on the protection of the name of the country of production
and its international registration (1958, the Stockholm Amendment in 1967);⑤ Trademark Registration Treaty ("TRT") (a 1973 treaty, Japan has not ratified it); and⑥ The Trademark Law Treaty (also called the trademark law harmonization treaty) of
1997.
There are two agreements that are known as the Madrid Agreement. The first is the
Madrid Agreement for prevention of false or misleading indications of country of origin
from 1891. Thirty-four major countries, including Japan, were members as of January
31, 1998 (the United States and Russia are not members), and the Agreement has beensuccessful. The second agreement is the Madrid Agreement on the International
Registration of Marks, from 1891, that eliminate country-by-country registration feesand removes complications. Thirty-four predominantly European countries are
members as of January 31, 1998; other major countries, such as the United States, theUnited Kingdom and Japan do not participate. Because the TRT has not been effective
to a large extent, WIPO introduced the Madrid Protocol in 1989, encouraging countries
to join, particularly the United States and Japan. Originally, WIPO created the TRT in
1973 to prevent the overlapping of examinations. The TRT's purpose was to make theacquisition of trademark rights in a member state easier and faster. The TRT had
weaknesses. The member states were forced to go through required formalities at theInternational Bureau in order to gain trademark rights and navigate trademark
registration procedures in each country. The other shortcoming was expense.
12

For details on these circumstances, please refer to the separate studies on the subject.

14

The international application under the TRT becomes effective internationally anddomestically as of the application date at the International Bureau, and is treated as adomestic application in any designated member state. The International Bureau issues
an international registration and publishes the mark based only on an examination offormality, and informs each designated state. Subsequently, the designated states
conducts substantive examination. The international registration becomes effective 15months after its public announcement, unless the national government office of adesignated country issues a notice of refusal of registration to the International Bureau
within the 15 months from the date of publication. The registration date of the domestic
trademark becomes the international application filing date. The TRT was supposed tohave a great deal of merit. The TRT partially went into effect when eight countries,
including the United States, the former Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, Italy andformer West Germany signed it. The United States, however, even though it proposed
the TRT, never ratified the TRT, due to the internal judicial ramifications. Japan also
has had a difficult time ratifying the TRT because it would require Japan to conduct
examinations in a short period. Hence, the TRT has not been ratified in Japan.
Despite the fact the TRT has not gained full acceptance, international development oftrademark law had moved on and entered into the next phase. Several meetings by
specialists from each member country were held at the WIPO between 1988 and 1993
in conjunction with the negotiations on GATT and TRIPs. Discussions were conductedwith respect to creating a trademark harmonization treaty to advance the international
harmonization of trademark and patent laws. Though the meetings did not lead to any
conclusions on patent law; they did on the trademark law side. Namely, with theconclusion of the meetings attended by the experts, the delegates of 86 countries
gathered at a conference in October 1994 that resulted in the adoption of the TLT on
October 27, 1994. This agreement became effective on August 1, 1996. Japan
approved it on June 10, 1996 after debates in the national Diet were held in conjunction
with the debate on partial amendment of Japanese trademark law. The main purpose of
the amendment of the Japanese trademark law in 1996 was to work with the TLT. It
was also to work with the Madrid Protocol and European trademark treaty.
The Trademark Law Treaty (TLT) applies the regulations of the Paris Convention to thenon-member states of the Convention. Article 15 of the TLT states that its member
states must observe the regulations concerning marks in the Paris Convention, thus
making it a duty for its member states. Therefore, the Amendment of 1996 in Japanfocused on achieving consistency between Japanese trademark law and the following
articles of the Paris Convention: art. 4 (priority right); art. 6-3 (protection of a country's
emblem); art. 6-7 (protection of a trademark right holder in cases of abuse by an agent
or a representative filing an application); and art. 11 (temporary protection of goods
exhibited at international expos). The amendment added phrases such as "member
states of the TLT" into the regulations in the trademark law as well as in the Unfair
Competition Prevention Law. As a result, Japan began to be able to apply theappropriate portions of its own laws to its dealings with the member states of the TLT.
IV. Agreements Among Multiple States15

In addition to the international treaties and agreements discussed previously, there areother accords reached between two or more countries. An example is the Pan-American
Treaty of 1929. Also, the European Economic Community (EEC) contemplated aunified trademark law for many years. (See F. K. Beyer, The Process Toward theCommunity Trademark, translated by Yoshinobu SOMENO and Keiko SOMENO, page173). The European Trademark Law became effective on March 15, 1994, and aEuropean Trademark Office was established in Alicante, Spain.
Other regional trademark agreements include the Benelux Unified Trademark Law,
which was signed in 1962 and went into force on January 1, 1972. This law is applied
equally in Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg.
There is a proposal, as set forth in the Model Trademark Law of 1956, created by anattorney, Dr. Stefan P. Ladas, for a unified global trademark law, although this is only avision for the distant future. It was drafted in the International Chamber of Commerceand remains a proposal.
V. The Relationship Between the Trademark Law and International Agreements
1. Related Regulations and Their Objectives
Article 77 of the Trademark Law states the following: "in the case that there areprovisions that conflict with treaty provisions, the treaty provisions take precedence."13
The Japanese Constitution also states, "It is necessary that agreements and otherinternational laws be observed (Art. 98, Sec. 2)" and declares the preference ofinternational law over domestic laws.
There are two viewpoints, however, on the effectiveness of international agreements asapplied domestically. One viewpoint asserts that international agreements go into force
directly after signing; the other viewpoint argues that international agreements can only
be implemented through domestic laws. There are also two separate views on therelationship between international agreements and domestic national laws. One viewfinds that international agreements supercede domestic law, while the other view claims
that domestic laws are supreme. This debate does not exist in trademark law because of
the provisions in article 77 of the Trademark Law (the Patent Law, art. 26). The factthat the Trademark Law states that international agreements take precedence overdomestic laws clearly defines their relationship.
2. Contents
There are many kinds of agreements. The Paris Convention, for example, was the firstkind of agreement to impose only the duty to enforce a domestic law on member states,making the enforcement of the agreement dependent on the enforcement of thedomestic law. In order for the direct application of an agreement to take place, anagreement must be clear and complete. A member state will have an international duty
to implement the regulations in such a case. According to article 77 of the Trademark
13

The Trademark Law here is applying article 26 of the Patent Law.

16

Law, that duty is not imposed on the citizens of member states. The following are
examples of provisions that member states do not have a duty to apply directly: thewell-known marks in the Paris Convention, national emblems of member states, service
marks, protection of collective trademarks (arts. 6-2, 6-3, 6-6, 7-2, among others),
control over the affixation of trade names illegally (art. 9-6), and the grant of atemporary protection on international expo exhibits.
However, there are treaty provisions which may be incorporated directly into domestic
law. In such scenarios, if the trademark law of the member state conflicts with theprovision in the agreement, or if the trademark law of the member state is insufficient,
the provisions in the agreement prevail, and they alter the trademark law accordingly.
Article 77 illustrates this point clearly. In reality, however, when the agreement and themember state's trademark law conflict, the trademark law is amended, and thus theapplication of art. 77 is rare.
Another kind of agreement allows a member state to honor trademarks registered inother member states. Examples from the Paris Convention include the following: art. 4,
which provides an applicant the priority right for a specific time period for filing in nonmember states subsequent to initial filing; art. 6, which sets forth the principle of the
independence of the trademark right; and art. 6-5, which states that the trademarks
registered in a member state should also be registered and protected in other member
states. This second kind of agreement practically acts as domestic law and takes
precedence over the domestic trademark law. Further, the interpretations of the member
states' domestic trademark laws are to be conducted so as not to conflict with the Paris
Convention.
3. Comparison of trademark treaties among multiple countries
As we have seen, there is a close relationship between international treaties and theJapanese Trademark Law, more so than in other areas of law, other than industrial
property right laws. However, the relationship is not close enough to call it a unified
trademark treaty, in which other countries would apply Japan's trademark laws.
In the European Trademark Law, the actual body of law in each geographic area isformed by the actual international law as to trademarks registered thereunder. Under
the European Trademark Law, the rights acquired by the trademark registration of theinternational treaty coexist with the domestic trademark rights, which were previously
obtained under the member-state law. Therefore, the treaty is not a completely unified
trademark law. On the other hand, the Trademark Registration Treaty (TRT) does notgrant an independent trademark right. The TRT eases the trademark registration
process and is a treaty that the member states merely join for cooperation. The attained
trademark right is still under the auspices of each member state and is independent fromthe trademark rights of other member states.

17