1

Typology of Acts of Infringement of Trademark Rights
by Country

The purpose of the trademark system of Japan is to protect business confidence that isembodied in registered trademarks. Several revisions have been made to the Trademark Act
where necessary so far in order to create an environment for providing more valuable goods orservices by making use of attractive brands.
Under the circumstances where there is demand for intensified protection of brands andremedies for infringement of rights in order to ensure effective protection, various issues havebeen raised, including: protection of famous trademarks with high brand value; restriction on theuse of trademarks that have become general terms; restriction on the exercise of rights inregistered trademarks not in use; responsibility of agencies engaged in importing fake brandproducts and counterfeits on behalf of individuals.
In this study focusing on these issues, we reviewed the legal systems of the United States,
Europe (EU, United Kingdom, Germany, and France) and China, and collected and analyzed
relevant judicial precedents in these jurisdictions. We also surveyed the needs among Japaneseusers and investigated the actual state of trademark infringement acts. Through these activities,
we sought out a desirable trademark system in Japan based on international comparison andopinions of Japanese users.

I

individuals.
Against this background, in this study
focusing on the following issues, weinvestigated the actual state of the use of
trademarks
and
acts
of
trademarkinfringement in Japan, while conducting
surveys and analysis for international
comparison of the countermeasures against
such infringement acts, with the aim to
explore a desirable form of trademark system
in Japan.

Introduction

1

Background of the study
The trademark system of Japan isdesigned to protect brand values andreputations of business operators that areembodied in registered trademarks, while
also protecting consumers’ interest.
Several revisions have been made to thetrademark system so far in order to respondto changes in the industrial structure andmovements
towardinternational
harmonization of trademark systems.
However, further discussions have been
demanded to examine issues concerning an
ideal framework for protection of trademark
rights, including how to protect famous
trademarks, how to respond to generalizationof trademarks, and how to deal withregistered trademarks not in use. The
Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2006
also pointed out the necessity to consider the
possibility of placing responsibility on
agencies engaged in importing fake brandproducts and counterfeit drugs on behalf of<Target issues in this study>
I. Ideal system for protecting famous
trademarks
II. Generalization of trademarks
III. Measures to deal with registeredtrademarks not in use (defense of
non-use)IV. Import agency business for individuals

2 Methods for implementing this study(1) Questionnaire survey and interview
survey targeting domestic companies
We conducted a questionnaire survey
1

IIP Bulletin 2007

conclusions of the discussions on each of thetarget issues concerning a desirable form oftrademark system in Japan.

targeting about 2,400 Japanese companies
with the objective of understanding theactual state of trademark infringements they
were suffering and their countermeasures aswell as their needs for protection under the
existing trademark system, focusing on thetarget issues. We also held interviews with 15
companies selected among those that had
responded to the questionnaire, so as to gaina detailed understanding of the actual stateand needs, and use this as the basis for the
discussion in this study.
(2) Overseas surveys, including interviews
For the purpose of comparing overseas
systems related to the target issues, werequested law firms in the United States,
Europe (the system under the Community
Trade
Mark
Regulations(hereinafterreferred to as the “CTM system”) , as well as
the United Kingdom, Germany, and France),
and China to provide us with information on
the relevant laws and systems in theircountries, legislative purpose and history
thereof, and judicial precedents and academic
theories, and analyzed the informationcollected in this way. Also in order toinvestigate the further details of thelegislative
history,
actualstatusofimplementation, and interpretations of suchlaws, which we were unable to fully
understand in the documentary survey, weinterviewed relevant government offices,academic experts and lawyers at law firms in
the United States and Europe.
(3) Discussion at the Committee
A committee was formed with nine
experts for the purpose of discussing andanalyzing the target issues from the technicalperspective.
The
committee
members
conducted research on the individual target
issues that they were in charge by referringto the findings in the overseas survey. Then,based on the results of the research on
documents and judicial precedents available
at home and abroad, the findings in thedomestic questionnaire and interview
surveys as well as those in the overseas
surveys, the committee discussed the target
issues on six occasions.
This report compiles the contents andII

1Statement of the issue
A trademark that has become wellknown or famous is capable of attracting
customers and has property value or
reputation in it. If such a famous trademark
is used by parties other than its owner withrespect to the goods or services for which it is
not supposed to be used, by getting a free rideon its capability of attracting customers, suchuse would weaken the connection between
the famous trademark and the owner andundermine the property value of the
trademark.
Under the Trademark Act, the effect of a
trademark right extends to goods or services
that are identical to those designated, andprotection is also afforded in the case where
the trademark is used by a third party on
goods or services that are similar to those
designated, by deeming such use as an act of
infringement of the trademark right. On theother hand, for the purpose of fully protecting
the business reputation embodied in the
trademark, the defensive mark registration
system is implemented wherein, if theregistered trademark is recognized widely
among consumers, the owner of the
trademark can exclude others from using it to
the extent that their use would cause
confusion as to the source of goods or services,
beyond the scope of goods or services similar
to those designated upon registration.
However, under the existing protection
system, the scope of such defensive right doesnotchangeirrespectiveof
howeverwell-known or famous the registeredtrademark is.
This situation poses a question regarding
thenecessity
toprotect
registeredtrademarks, within a framework forprotecting well-known or famous trademarks
under the Trademark Act in addition to the2

IIP Bulletin 2007

Ideal system for protecting famous
trademarks

defensive mark registration system, byaffording a registered trademark, as part ofits effect, the power to prohibit parties otherthan the owner from using it on goods orservices that are dissimilar to those
designated but would cause confusion as tothe source of goods or services. Protection
under the Trademark Act would also beneeded where the use by others would dilutethe registered trademark or undermine its
reputation, even if there is no possibility of
causing confusion as to the source of goods orservices.

3

Discussion at the committee
Among other points, the committee
members stressed the necessity to examine
how the Trademark Act and the Unfair
Competition Prevention Act shared the rolein protecting famous trademarks in Japan,
and whether these Acts afforded adequate
protection in their own domains.
The provisions of the Trademark Act
regarding acts deemed to be infringement ofregistered trademarks do not apply to the useon dissimilar goods or services, whereas theuse of famous trademarks by parties otherthan the owners on dissimilar goods orservices in a manner that would cause
confusion as to the source of goods or services,or misappropriation of famous trademarks,
shall be governed by the Unfair Competition
Prevention Act. However, since Article 2(1)(i)and (ii) of the Unfair Competition Prevention
Act provide for “using as an indication of
goods or business” as the condition for
alleging unfair competition, it is difficult toconsider that this Act expressly protects afamous trademark where its fame or
reputation or distinctive character isdamaged because of being used in a way
other than as an indication of goods orbusiness.
In particular, in order to satisfy thecondition under Article 2(1)(ii), “using as
one’s own indication of goods or business,”
the trademark is not only required to be used
as an indication of goods or business but also
required to be used as “one’s own” indicationof goods or business. This means that it is anatural interpretation that the requirement
under Article 2(1)(ii) cannot be satisfied
where the trademark is used as “anotherperson’s” indication of goods or business.
According to the judicial precedents, “using
as an indication of goods or business” means
using a trademark in a manner that it is used
to distinguish one’s own goods from others’.
The provision of Article 2(1)(ii) can beconstrued to exclude from protection any
ways of use that would cause problems interms of freedom of expression, while nottaking into consideration the risk of dilution,and in this respect, the scope of regulation

2

Protection of famous trademarks inforeign countries
According to the research on theprotection systems for famous trademarks inforeign countries, famous trademarks areafforded prohibitive power under trademark
laws, which is also effective with regard todissimilar goods or services. These systems
are designed to protect the “actual value” oftrademarks, rather than protecting them
only by reason that they are registered or
famous.
In all jurisdictions surveyed, in order toobtain protection of famous trademarks fromuse by others on dissimilar goods or services,
it is required to prove that the trademarks
are famous, reputable or well-known.
However, there is no system wherein rights
can be obtained by registering thefamousness of trademarks in advance.
Also in all jurisdictions surveyed,
whether there is the risk of dilution isdetermined by examining the substance of
infringement acts, such as undermining thetrademark’s distinctive character. Regulatory
measures focus on dilution due to weakened
distinctive character and dilution due tocontamination.
In the United States, using famous
trademarks in a way other than using themas trademarks is allowed as fair use, whereas
in Europe, such use could be, in generalterms, subject to regulation if it would cause
dilution.

3
IIP Bulletin 2007

Trademark Act, and in particular, theyreported that due to the use of theirtrademarks by others on dissimilar goods orservices, confusion was caused as to thesource of goods or services and their brandvalue was damaged. It cannot be said that
how to regulate such acts of diluting
trademarks has been fully discussed in Japan.
In the future, while taking into consideration
the argument under the Unfair Competition
Prevention Act, we should continue actively
discussing the scope of and requirement forprotectionoffamoustrademarks
independently under the Trademark Act.

under this provision is narrower than that
under the provisions for protection of famous
trademarks in the United States and Europe.
Furthermore, compared with the relevant
provisions applicable in the United Statesand Europe which require the trademark notonly to be famous but also to be at risk ofbeing diluted or suffering damage to
reputation, the language in the provision of
Article 2(1)(ii) is very unique.
If a new provision should be introduced
under the Japanese Trademark Act to protect
famous trademarks from dilution orcontamination, it would be one possible
direction to follow the style of regulation
implemented in the United States andEurope, which takes into consideration therisk of dilution, without attaching thecondition of “using as one’s own indication of
goods or business” set forth in Article 2(1)(ii)of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
Since the scope of protection under suchprovision would be broader than that under
the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, it isnecessary to further examine whether suchbroad protection is really needed.
With regard to the question of whether
or not protection of famous trademarks
should be provided under the Trademark Act,the committee has not yet reached any clear
and definite conclusion. Although there wasno opinion that protection under the
Trademark Act was definitely required under
the current circumstances where protection
was available under the Unfair Competition
Prevention Act, the needs for protection from
dilution or contamination in some way wereclearly indicated. However, on what
conditions protection should be afforded
under the Trademark Act and what should be
the subject of protection have not yet been
fully discussed in terms of the balance withthe regulation under the Unfair Competition
Prevention Act, nor have the needs among
companies been clearly unified yet.
According to the domestic questionnaire
survey, about 14% of the respondentcompanies stated that they had suffereddamage to the value of their trademarks forwhich no relief could be obtained under the

III Generalization of trademarks
1

Statement of the issue
Generalization of a trademark means thephenomenon where, in the case of a
trademark used on a new product ortrademark used on a product with a large
market share, consumers and purchasers
have become less aware that the trademark
is a registered one, and as a result, thetrademark that initially indicated the sourceof the product provided by a particularcompany has become a generic term thatindicates the particular goods or services perse.
Whether generalization of a registeredtrademark can be prevented largely depends
on the trademark owner’s efforts, such as
performing thorough management of theirtrademarks
andpublicizing
amongconsumers that their trademarks areregistered. On the other hand, where a party(including administrative authorities) otherthan the trademark owner uses theregistered trademark as a generic term
without knowing that the trademark is
registered, such use does not immediately
constitute infringement of the trademark
right because it does not display thetrademark’s function of indicating the source.
However, where such other party uses theregistered trademark in a manner that would
weaken the trademark’s distinctive character,the trademark owner has no choice but to4

IIP Bulletin 2007

magazines. Since the contents of a dictionary,etc. are reproduced repeatedly, if a registeredtrademark is indicated as a generic term insuch publication, the trademark is highly
likely to lose distinctive character. The CTM
system, Germany, and Spain require
publishers only to correct the description of
the registered trademark in the next edition,
so as to reduce their burden. Correction canbe made by simply attaching indications to
the trademark such as R, Trademark,Registered Trademark, etc.
(2) Restriction on the right in a registeredtrademark that has become a genericterm, and cancellation system for suchtrademarkIn Europe (the CTM system, the United
Kingdom, Germany, and France) and theUnited States, where a trademark has
become a generic term after it was registered,
the effect of the right in the trademark shallbe restricted and the registration shall becancelled. On the other hand, where a
trademark was registered despite the factthat it was already used as a generic term at
the time of registration, and then it becomesno longer a generic term when cancellation ofregistration is requested, the registration
shall be maintained.

expect that party to kindly stop using it
because the Trademark Act does not afford
any legal means to prevent such use byothers. Therefore, it is argued that somemeans should be provided so as to enable thetrademark owner to stop others from using
the registered trademark in a manner thatwould weaken its distinctive character. In
particular, considering that the fact that a
trademark has been added to a dictionary asa generic term is regarded as proof ofgeneralization of the trademark, it would beone
possible
approachtoprevent
generalization by creating a right to indicatethat the trademark added to a dictionary orotherwise reproduced therein as a genericterm is a registered one.
When a registered trademark has
become a generic term, the effect of the
trademark right shall be restricted under
Article 26 of the Trademark Act, but theregistration shall not be invalidated orcancelled because generalization is not a
statutory ground for requesting a trial forinvalidation or filing an opposition toregistration. Therefore, whether a registeredtrademark has become a generic term isdetermined by court in individual trademark
infringement cases. Even if generalization ofa registered trademark is found in one case,the effect of the trademark right in that
trademark may be disputed in other cases
until the trademark owner waives thetrademark right, placing the trademark rightin an unstable state.

3

Discussion at the committee
If the regulation on the use of aregistered trademark as a generic term isapplied to literary works in general or
products in general, it would expand theregulatory limits under the Trademark Act,
which only prohibits the use as a trademark
and restricts the effect of the trademark rightin a registered trademark that has become ageneric term. In this context, the committee
discussed, among other points, the necessityof legal measures to prevent generalizationand of a cancellation system for registeredtrademarks that have become generic terms.
(1) Necessity of legal measures to prevent
generalization
Introducing the provision to grant theright to request an indication of the fact ofregistration, like Article 10 of the CTM
Regulations, would not only provide for a

2

Measures to prevent generalization inforeign countries(1) Preventive measures for publications
According to the research on themeasures to prevent generalization in foreigncountries, Denmark, Sweden, Norway,
Finland, the CTM system, Germany, andSpain implement a system wherein the
trademark owner can request the publisher
of a dictionary, etc. to indicate the fact ofregistration of the trademark. In all of thesejurisdictions, this system only covers
dictionaries, encyclopedias and other similarreference works, excluding newspapers and5
IIP Bulletin 2007

relief for the trademark owner but also
impose a new obligation on other parties.
Therefore, if the scope of such obligation
should be expanded so as to make that righteffective, it is necessary to define the scope ofparties to whom the request can be made by
only including publishers of dictionaries andencyclopediasoralso
includingadministrative agencies, and further define
the scope of works in which the indication
should be attached by also including
textbooks used at ordinary schools.
In the domestic questionnaire survey,
about 10% of the respondent companies
stated
that
they
had
experienced
generalization of their registered trademarks,
pointing out “the use of the registeredtrademark as a generic term in a publication”
as a cause of generalization. In light of suchcircumstances, one possible approach would
be to introduce the right to request an
indication of the fact of registration as a legal
measure to prevent generalization of aregistered trademark, as implemented inEurope. However, there was an opinion thatin reality, a dispute would rarely occur
between the publisher and the trademark
owner over generalization of the registeredtrademark. In this respect, it is reported thatpublishers correct relevant descriptions intheir publications when receiving a noticefrom a trademark owner that they use theregistered trademark. Furthermore, another
opinion argues that what is needed in thefirst place to prevent generalization is thetrademark owner’s own efforts, and if any
support is required, one possible approach
would be to develop guidelines for preventing
generalization as a helpful reference forcompanies’
trademarkmanagement.
Therefore, when considering the possibility ofcreating the right to request an indication of
the fact of registration in Japan, it isnecessary to fully examine the scope ofparties subject to the request or content of
the request, as well as the outcome of the
failure to make a request for an indication of
the fact of registration.

(2) Cancellation system for registeredtrademarks that have become generic
termsWith regard to a cancellation system forregistered trademarks that have become
generic terms, the results of the domestic
questionnaire and interview surveys do not
clearly indicate the needs for such system.
Some respondent companies stated that theywould be able to deal with the issue ofgeneralization in infringement lawsuits.
Furthermore, since the use of a trademarkthat has become a generic term does notconstitute infringement of the trademark
right if it is used as an indication in acommon way, the absence of a cancellation
system would not immediately cause
problems. However, a dispute might occur
due to the fact that the registration remains
in existence, as a matter of form, even after
the trademark has become a generic term.
Therefore, we should continue to take note of
the potential needs for the elimination ofsuch adverse effect.

IV Measures to deal with registeredtrademarks not in use (defense of
non-use)1

Statement of the issue
Since protection by means of a
trademark right under the Trademark Act
should be afforded, in principle, for the
reputation acquired through the use of the
trademark, registered trademarks that are
not in use are basically ineligible forprotection. If the exercise of the rights inregistered trademarks not in use wererestricted, the advantage of owning suchtrademarks would be reduced, which would
finally curb the rise in the number ofregistered trademarks not in use. However,under the existing Trademark Act that
adopts the registration system and includes
no provisions to restrict the right to claim an
injunction or damages, it is formally possible
for the owner of a registered trademark notin use to exercise such right.
At the Trademark System Subcommittee
6

IIP Bulletin 2007

earlier trademark that would cause confusion
with the trademark applied for shall be thegrounds for rejection or opposition, on thecondition that the earlier trademark is notwaived (the non-use for three years shall be
prima facie evidence of the waiver).

of the Intellectual Property Policy Committeeof the Industrial Structure Council, it isargued that the number of registeredtrademarks not in use has been increasing
and these trademarks have made it difficultfor others to choose their own trademarks.
The subcommittee also recommended that
careful consideration be required whenupholding a defense of non-use in opposition
or invalidation proceedings, and further
consideration be required in infringement
lawsuits in light of the consistency with thelegal principle of abuse of right. Based ontheseopinions
presented
atthesubcommittee, we should examine thenecessity of allowing a defense of non-use andthe scope of such defense.

3

Discussion at the committee
The committee discussed the problems
with the existence of registered trademarks
not in use, the necessity to allow a defense of
non-use against the exercise of the right in aregistered trademark not in use, and thescope of such defense.
Based on the results of the domestic
questionnaire and interview surveys, itcannot be concluded that the majority of the
respondentcompanies
considereditnecessary to restrict the exercise of the rights
in trademarks that had not been in use for acertain period of time (in infringement
lawsuits or oppositions or invalidation
proceedings); we could not find any reason topositively restrict the rights in suchtrademarks.
Where a defense of non-use is introduced,
the party who raises the defense in an
infringement lawsuit would also request atrial for cancellation, and therefore the issueof coexistence of conflicting trademarks
would be resolved if the trademark
registration were cancelled on the grounds of
non-use. However, unlike the systems
implemented in Europe under which both the
infringement lawsuit and the cancellation
proceedings for the registered trademark arehandled at court, in Japan, if the party whoraises a defense of non-use in an
infringement lawsuit fails to request a trial
for cancellation, the registered trademark
would survive even though the defense of
non-use is upheld, which would make thelegal relationships complex. In order to avoid
such situation, one possible approach wouldbe, in addition to allowing a defense of
non-use, to enable not only the patent office
but also the court to cancel the registration of
the trademark not in use. Nevertheless, thisapproach should be carefully considered
because it would change the foundation of the2

Measures to deal with registeredtrademarks not in use in foreigncountries(1) Exercise of the rights in registeredtrademarks not in use
In the CTM system, Germany, and theUnited Kingdom, a defense of non-use isallowed with regard to a registeredtrademark that has not been used for fiveconsecutive years, prohibiting the exercise of
the right in that trademark. In the UnitedStates, the non-use of a trademark for threeconsecutive years is regarded as a waiver of
the trademark, and such waiver can be raised
as a cause of defense. On the other hand,France and China do not allow a defense of
non-use, permitting the exercise of the rightin a registered trademark not in use.
(2) Where the earlier trademark in conflictis not in use
In the CTM system, Germany, and theUnited Kingdom, an opposition can be filed
on the grounds of the existence of an earlier
trademark that is in conflict with thetrademark applied for. However, theapplication for registration shall not berefused if the earlier trademark is not in use.
Furthermore, in order to make a registeredtrademark declared invalid on the grounds ofthe existence of an earlier trademark in
conflict, the earlier trademark must be not inuse. In the United States, the existence of an
7
IIP Bulletin 2007

toimposeresponsibility
under
the
Trademark Act on import agencies engaged
in importing infringing goods on behalf ofindividuals and how to regulate such importagency business.

cancellation
systemforregisteredtrademarks.
In Europe, a defense of non-use isallowed in opposition and invalidation
proceedings. This is in order to avoid theadverse situation where two conflicting
trademarks coexist due to lack of
examination by comparing the applicant’s
trademarkwithanother’s
registeredtrademark based on an earlier-filed
application. That is to say, the opposition
systems in Europe have a different basis
from that of the Japanese opposition system.
Therefore, where an earlier registeredtrademark not in use cannot defeat a
trademark in a later-filed application forregistration that is in conflict with it, thiswould result in the coexistence of two or moreregistered trademarks that are similar toeach other, significantly affecting theconsumers’ interest.
Consequently, it cannot be concluded
that the companies’ needs for the
introduction of a defense of non-use havegrown to an adequate level. In addition, there
is also concern over the possible coexistenceof conflicting trademarks. Therefore, whether
or not to introduce a defense of non-use
should be carefully considered.

V

Import agency
individuals

business

2

Treatment of import agency businessin foreign countries(1) Responsibility on individuals forimporting goods for private use
Comparing the relevant laws of thejurisdictions surveyed, they require an act of
infringement of a trademark right to becommitted “in the course of trade.” Therefore,
where an individual imports, for private use,goods that infringe a trademark right(importation by an individual), such act does
not constitute infringement. There is an
exception that the French law does not
stipulate the “in the course of trade”
requirement. However, even in France,
infringement is actually found in the cases
where it is obviously impossible at all toconstrue the act of importing to be committed
for private use. We should further examine towhat extent the importer is held responsible
in other cases.
(2) Responsibility on parties who assist
individuals in importing goods forprivate use
In all jurisdictions surveyed, parties who
have assisted others in committing
infringement of trademark rights arebasically held responsible. Most of thesejurisdictions, however, require such parties tobe aware that they are assisting thecommission of infringement. Also, withregard to the act of importing infringing
goods that is disguised as importation by animport agency for an individual, the generalprinciple of responsibility of accessory shallapply, and there is no other special treatmentof such act. In the phase of application of law
in particular, such disguised importation
shall be regulated, focusing on its actual
conditions rather than its appearance.
Another question is, in the case ofimportation of infringing goods purely for anindividual’s private use, whether the agency
involved in the importation process is heldfor

1Statement of the issue
It is not always easy for Japanese
consumers to import goods directly fromoverseas providers. In such a case, importagencies handle the necessary procedures forimport on behalf of consumers, including
selectionoftheoverseas
provider,procurement of goods, and shipment of goods.
These import agencies greatly help Japanese
consumers access overseas markets.
On the other hand, some agencies import
goods that are likely to infringe trademarks
rights, and such agencies are alleged to be
substantially infringing trademark rights.
The Intellectual Property Strategic Program
2006 also raised issues as to whether or not
8
IIP Bulletin 2007

importation by agencies. On the other hand,in the interview survey, we heard the concern
over importation of counterfeit goods
conducted in the disguise of importation byindividuals. In this context, the Customs andTariff Bureau of the Ministry of Financerevised the directive to clearly announce thateven when only a single piece of goods
suspected of infringing a trademark right isdetected in import cargo, Customs shall carryout the procedure for identifying theexistence of infringement based on theevidence and opinions submitted by theimporter and the right holder. It is argued
that since the enforcement of the revised
directive in July 2006, it is now possible todeal with imports of infringing goods throughthe improved operations at Customs. Taking
this change into consideration, we cannot
find any urgent necessity to take additional
measures under the Trademark Act toregulate importation by agencies.
(Researcher: Tomoko NAKATSUKA)

responsibleforinfringementofthetrademark right. In France, where an
individual’s private use of infringing goods
shall basically be regarded as constituting
infringement, it is natural that the agency’s
assistance shall be illegal. Also in the United
Kingdom and the CTM system (at least in thephase of application of law in Spain) where
the private use of infringing goods is legallyallowed, the act of assisting such use isconsidered to satisfy the “in the course of
trade” requirement, and therefore theassisting agency is held responsible.

3.

Discussion at the committee
The committee discussed the necessity toregulate import agency business forindividuals, possible solutions from thelegislative perspective, and requirements
needed for the regulation of import agency
business for individuals.
Types of import agency business forindividuals can be categorized into two,
importation of (genuine) products that are
unavailable in Japan, such as those for which
manufacture is not approved in Japan(importation in the original sense), andimportation of infringing goods (illegal
importation). The Trademark Act, whichpertains to the field of intellectual property,
is to regulate the latter type.
Where the principal proprietor (theindividual who has ordered importation) does
not have the intention to sell the imported
goods and therefore his/her act does notconstitute infringement, the import agency’s
act also does not constitute infringement
independently. On the other hand, where theimport agency, while disguising itself asimporting goods on behalf of an individual,
actually sells the imported infringing goodsin the domestic market, such agency could beheld responsible for infringement. The
responsibility of import agencies should bedetermined on a case-by-case basis.
Importation by agencies can also be
regarded as an act of indirect infringement.
However, in the domestic questionnaire
survey, we could not identify the actual
situation where damage occurred due to
9
IIP Bulletin 2007