April 25, 2014
To: Secretariat of Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters, Cabinet Secretariat
Council for Intellectual Property Protection on Internet (CIPP)

CIPP Report for FY 2013

As you have already known as a participant, since FY 2005, the CIPP has beencommitted to the collaborative activities on the private-sector level by inviting the Secretariatof Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters, Cabinet Secretariat, National Police Agency,
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications,
Agency for Cultural Affairs, and Japan Patent Office as observers in order to solve theproblem of infringements of intellectual property rights (IPR) arising from Internet services.
We hope this report will help you plan IPR protection policies for FY 2014 as it represents
a consensus of right holders (individuals and organizations) and Internet service providers.

[Overview]
Report on Effectiveness VerificationIt was confirmed that Group 1 has kept the percentage of infringing goods at a low levelas a result of the implementation of certain measures including voluntary patrols byInternet service providers and removals upon notice from right holders.

In the case of Group 3 (the definition of which has changed since the FY2012 andearlier reports), although the percentage of goods infringing upon a trademark or thathave a high probability of being infringing goods remains high, new steps for dealing
with infringing goods are planned.

1/9

１. Report of the Effectiveness Verification Committee(1) Effectiveness Verification
As usual, we set up the “Effectiveness Verification Committee” consisting of theindividuals who were actually in charge of removal requests and voluntary removals.
Effectiveness verification was performed as described in the “Implementation Method” inAnnex 1.
As in past years, goods were divided into two categories for the purposes of verification:(i) goods that could be identified as infringing upon a trademark or copyright based on theiron-screen text or graphics, and would allow right holders to request auction operators tosuspend them (percentage of infringing goods: horizontal axis of Figure 1, Table 1), and (ii)items that when purchased and appraised can be clearly identified by the right holder fromavailable information as being an infringing goods even though there were no direct groundsin the posted information that would allow auction operators to remove such goods (inaccordance with their guidelines) (goods with high probability of being infringing goods:
vertical axis of Figure 1, Table 2).
Taking note of the fact that the single company categorized as Group 3 up until theFY2012 report, which was a non-member and had not implemented any measures for
dealing with infringements, has since ceased to operate its service, and given that there are
now no longer any companies like the aforementioned non-member, which can be seen as aconsequence of the diverse range of measures taken by all parties concerned, Group 3
shall now be used to indicate members that intend to commence taking new practical steps
for dealing with infringing goods. As a result, the definition of the three groups has changed.
Details are as follows.
Group 1・・・
Three member companies (as in reports up to FY2012)
Percentage of infringing goods or goods with high probability of being infringing
goods are both lowGroup 2・・・
One member company(Not included in the analysis for this year due to small data set.)Group 3・・・
One member companyExpected to introduce measures for dealing with intellectual property infringements inthe future.

2/9

[Figure 1: Definitions of Percentage and Descriptions of Groups]

Percentage of items thatright holders deemed had
a high probability of being
infringing goods from an
objective viewpoint
although the requirements
specified in the Guidelines
were not met

Group 2Group 3

Low in % of infringementand declining inprobability

High in both % of
infringement andprobabilityGroup 1
Low in both % of
infringement andprobability

Percentage of IPR-infringing goods
meeting the requirements specified inthe guidelines

3/9

(2) Verification Results
Table 1 Percentage of Infringing Goods
2011

Copyright

Trademark

Total

2012

2013

# of
verified
items

% of
infringement# ofverified
items

% of
infringement# ofverified
items

% of
infringement

Group 1

9007

0.90%

9025

0.11％

7,381

0.18%

Group 2

29

0.00%

73

1.37％

49

0.00%

Group 3

――――

690

0.00%

Group 1

4517

0.42%

7388

1.31％

7,833

0.71%

Group 2

567

3.00%

277

5.05％

960.00%Group 3

――――

1,040

58.85%

Group 1

13524

0.74%

16593

0.64％

15,2140.45%

Group 2596

2.85%

350

4.29％

145

0.00%

Group 3

――――

1,730

35.38%For Group 3, due to the loss of continuity by changing membership from 2013, the figuresfor 2011 and 2012 have been omitted.
Table 2 Percentage of Goods with High Probability
2011# ofverified
items

Copyright

Trademark

Total

2012
# of
verified
items% ofprobability

2013
# of
verified
items% ofprobability% ofprobabilityGroup 1

9007

0.28%

9025

0.18％

7,381

0.58%

Group 229

27.59%

7324.66％

49

0.00%

Group 3――――

690

0.87%

Group 1

4517

0.11%

7388

0.07％

7,833

0.29%

Group 2

567

5.11%

277

3.97％

960.00%Group 3

――――

1,040

13.37%

Group 1

13938

0.24%

16593

0.13％

15,2140.43%Group 2

596

5.70%

350

8.29％

145

0.00%

Group 3

――――

1,730

8.38%

For Group 3, due to the loss of continuity by changing membership from 2013, the figuresfor 2011 and 2012 have been omitted.

4/9Graph 1 Percentage of Infringing Goods for Group 1 (Total)
12.00%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%

0.74%

0.64%

0.45%

0.00%
2011年
2011

2012年
2012

2013年
2013

1群Group 1(Graphs for Groups 2 and 3 have been omitted)

Graph 2 Percentage of Goods with High Probability for Group 1 (Total)
12.00%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%

0.43%

0.24%
0.13%

0.00%
2011年
2011

2012年
2012
1群Group 1(Graphs for Groups 2 and 3 have been omitted)

5/9

2013年
2013

(3) Analysis of Verification Results
A. Copyright-related items (Tables 1 and 2)
For Group 1, the percentage of infringing goods rose slightly from last year to 0.18％.
The percentage of goods with high probability (of infringements) also rose slightly to0.58％.
Group 2 was excluded from analysis because of the small data set.
Group 3 also had low rates, with a percentage of infringing goods being 0.00% andpercentage of goods with high probability being 0.87％.
B. Trademark-related items (Tables 1 and 2)
For Group 1, the percentage of infringing goods fell slightly from last year to 0.71％.
Group 2 was excluded from analysis because of the small data set.
The rates for Group 3 are a cause for considerable concern, with a percentage ofinfringing goods being 58.85% and percentage of goods with high probability being
13.37％.
C. Overall Trends (Graphs 1 and 2)
At less than 1%, the percentages of infringing goods for Group 1, in which measures for
dealing with IPR-infringing goods are well-advanced, remains very low. This is the thirdyear running in which the total has been below 1% even when the goods with highprobability are included.
Group 2 was excluded from the graphs and analysis because of the small data set.
Group 3 was also excluded from the graphs because of the lack of continuity with thedefinition of Group 3 in previous reports (up until FY2012).
(4) OtherIn the effectiveness verification process, sharing of information took place in relation to themultiple instances in software listings of items not displayed by retailers and similar, namely“manuals”, “product keys”, “modified save data”, and “recovery disks”. In this regard, theview was expressed that steps should be taken to deal with this through an investigation of
the situation by the right holder and the obtaining of an objective legal opinion.
While Guidelines Committee meetings normally provide a forum for discussion of trends
in infringing goods, as no such meetings were held during this fiscal year the Effectiveness
Verification Committee fulfilled this function instead.
2. Summary of this Year’s Activities
As stated above, this report has found that promoting a “Japanese Approach” in which

6/9both right holders and operators respect each other’s positions and collaboratively stand up
against infringers has again succeeded in keeping the percentage of infringing goods inGroup 1 at a very low level this fiscal year. In Group 3, which currently has a highpercentage of infringing goods, because the operator concerned is a member of the CIPP,
the future investigation and implementation of suitable measures for reducing the percent of
infringing goods can be anticipated in collaboration with the member operators and rightholders in Groups 1 and 2. Also, a review of current procedures for countering rights
infringements in Internet shopping malls has been presented to the CIPP by operators.
Beginning in the next fiscal year, the CIPP intends to hold detailed discussions of theseprocedures to make possible the adoption of more practical measures.
We would appreciate it if the government would introduce CIPP’s approach, which has
results unlike any other in the world, to other countries, and help the approach become
recognized as the de facto standard for measures against IPR-infringing goods on theInternet.

7/9

Statistical Data

■Overall Auctioned Items
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Yahoo! Auction

2,250

2,212

2,512

2,631

3,149

Rakuten Auction

205

284

319

317

317

638

766

785

888

1,048

364

451

432

367

331

DeNA Shopping(Bidders)
MOBAOKUIn units of ten thousand.

All figures are daily average values in December. In the case of DeNA Shopping, thefigures for 2009 to 2012 are the total number of auction items at Bidders on the last dayof December.

■Voluntary Removals
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Copyright

29,20238,33878,052

62,69462,400Trademark180,253

74,025

139,792

233,273

54,791

Total

209,455

112,363

217,844295,967

117,191Totals for Yahoo! Auction, Rakuten Auction, DeNA Shopping, MOBAOKU, andShoppies.

■Removal Requests from Right Holders

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Copyright

6,542

4,826

2,601

754

315

Trademark34,12940,20071,64454,42844,905

Total

40,67145,026

74,24555,18245,220

Totals for Yahoo! Auction, Rakuten Auction, DeNA Shopping, MOBAOKU, andShoppies.

The figures on removal requests from right holders include the cases where individual
items were removed and cases where items are removed due to a vendor beingsuspended.

Year-to-year comparisons of removal requests by right holders are difficult because
right holders may focus their monitoring on different services or product types atdifferent times.

8/9

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

9/9