The Council for Intellectual Property
Protection on Internet (CIPP)
Report for Fiscal Year 2020

May 2021
Council for Intellectual Property Protection on Internet (CIPP)

1/14

[Overview]
1. A Report from the Effectiveness Verification Committee● For this fiscal year, we have continued to verify the effectiveness of the measures against
infringement not only in the Internet auction services (from here on referred to as the“Auction”) but also in the flea market applications (from here on referred to as “Flea-Ma”). At
the same time, we have catalogued and organized the verification results based on groupingby the occurrence rate of infringing goods to clearly show the effectiveness of voluntary
efforts by Rights Holders as well as CtoC (customer-to-customer) marketplace operators(from here on referred to as "CtoC Platformers").
In each group (Group 1 to Group 2), the volume of distribution in the markets generally
expanded. Considering this current trend, we believe that the effectiveness of verification
measures against infringement through the CIPP continues to be working. In particular, we
did not see counterfeit goods' transactions were being concentrated in specific services,which used to be one of the characteristics in recent years.
● For Group 1, we confirmed that the occurrence rate of IPR (Intellectual Property Rights)infringing goods has continued to be kept at a low level, as in the last fiscal year, as a resultof CIC Platformers’ voluntary patrols and removals of such goods by alerts from Rights
Holders. The situation improved in some of the Group 3 CtoC Platformers which moved toGroup 1 this fiscal year, after measures over the past three years. We also believe that thiswas a major achievement,● As for Group 2, CtoC Platformer were in this category because the occurrence rate of
IPR-infringing goods was high due to the concentrated exhibitions of counterfeit goods infiscal 18 or 19. They successfully curbed the occurrence rate for this fiscal year. If their work
continues in this direction, they will be moved up to Group 1 in the next fiscal year.
2. A Report from the Third Committee● The committee was briefed by Japan Patent Office International Cooperation Division’sCounterfeit Section about the need for regulations in Trademark Law regarding IPRinfringing goods through cross-border transactions. Then it exchanged opinions with the
2/14

Japan Patent Office and the Platformers about issues related to imports of infringing goods
for personal use.
1. A Report from the Effectiveness Verification Committee(1) The Effectiveness Verification Method
This fiscal year, as in previous years, we set out operational procedures (please see thedocument 1 “Effectiveness Verification Implementation Method”) at the Effectiveness
Verification Committee, which consists of those who check the infringement situation as
Rights Holders and their counterparts at CtoC Platformers. We have conducted theeffectiveness verification based on these procedures.
① The scope of effectiveness verification
For this fiscal year as well, we examined eight services, including Auction as well as FleaMa services.
②Types of exhibits for effectiveness verification
For this fiscal year, as in the previous year, we divided exhibits of goods into two categories.
(i) “Exhibits of Infringing Goods”
Exhibits of the goods that could be judged as infringement of a copyright or a trademark,based on on-screen texts or images, which would allow Rights Holders to request CtoC
Platformers to suspend the entry of such goods.
(ii) “Exhibits of Goods With a Probability of Infringement”
These are the exhibits of goods that do not directly offer visible evidence of infringement in
the information provided (when checked against the Guidelines, etc.) that would allow CtoC
operators to remove them as infringing goods but have characteristics as in the following:(1) Exhibits of goods which are deemed to be have infringed a copyright or trademark as aresult of appraisal of on-screen texts and images by Rights Holders and if the Rights
Holders make a request for removal, CtoC Platformers can take action for removal
3/14

(“Exhibits of Infringing Goods Without Notice”), or (2) exhibits of goods which are deemed
as without doubt being infringing goods if the Rights Holders purchase and appraise thegoods based on various pieces of information (“Exhibits of Goods With a High Probability of
Infringement”).
③Grouping of CtoC Platformers
We divided CtoC Platformers’ services into Groups 1 to 3 by the occurrence rate of infringing
goods’ exhibits. This aims to further clarify the achievements of voluntary action by Rights
Holders and CtoC Platformers.
(i) Group 1 (The average occurrence rate of infringing goods’ exhibits in the last three years
is less than 2 percent): 6 services belonged to this group(ii) Group 2 (The average occurrence rate of infringing goods’ exhibits in the last three years
is more than 2 percent but less than 10 percent): 2 services belonged to this group.
(iii) Group 3 (The average occurrence rate of infringing goods’ exhibits in the last three years
is more than 10 percent): No service belonged to this group.

4/14

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

FY2018

Copyright

TrademarkTotal

FY2019FY2020Group 1# ofverified
items
2,427

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.15%

# of
verified
items
1,513

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.00%

# of
verified
items
1,800

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.28%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

2,062

0.44%

2,354

0.25%

2,197

0.18%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

4,489

0.30%

3,867

0.16%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

3,997

0.23%

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

FY2018

Copyright

TrademarkTotal

FY2019FY2020Group 1# ofverified
items
2,427

% of
Occurrence
Rate
1.40%

# of
verified
items
1,513

% of
Occurrence
Rate
3.37%

# of
verified
items
1,800

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.00%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

2,062

0.02%

2,354

1.27%

2,197

0.73％

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

4,489

0.02%

3,867

2.09%

3,997

0.40%

Group 2

―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3

―

―

―

―

―

―

5/14

6/14

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

FY2018

Copyright

TrademarkTotal

FY2019Group 1# ofverified
items
6,430

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.26%

Group 2―

Group 3

FY2020# ofverified
items
3,500

% of
Occurrence
Rate
1.06%

# of
verified
items
2,198

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.18%

―

705

0.14%

1,301

0.54%

477

26.20%

76

0.00%

Group 1

5,093

1.06%

4,389

2.96%

4,742

0.49%

Group 2

―

―

1,083

4.16%

2,308

1.78%

Group 32,302

56.25%

753

0.93%Group 1

11,523

0.61%

7,895

2.12%

6,940

0.39%

Group 2

―

―

1,788

2.57%

3,609

1.33%

Group 32,779

41.22%

829

0.84%(ii) Occurrence Rate of “Exhibits of Goods With the Probability of Infringement”

FY2018

Copyright

TrademarkTotal

FY2019FY2020Group 1# ofverified
items
6,430

% of
Occurrence
Rate
1.07%

# of
verified
items
3,506

% of
Occurrence
Rate
2.31%

# of
verified
items
2,198

% of
Occurrence
Rate
3.78%

Group 2

―

―

705

5.25%

1,301

0.00%

Group 3

477

0.00%

76

26.32%

Group 1

5,093

1.19%

3,837

9.56％

4,742

0.39%

Group 2

―

―

1,083

14.59%

2,308

5.16%

Group 3

2,302

3.30%

753

6.11%

Group 1

11.523

1.13%

7,343

6.10%

6,940

2.10%

Group 2

―

―

1,788

10.91%

3,609

3.30%

Group 3

2,779

1.65%

829

7.96%

7/14

＊There were no services in Group 2 in fiscal 2018.

8/14

(3) An Analysis of Verification Results(i) Auction
All Auction services are categorized in Group 1. The occurrence rates of “Exhibits ofInfringing Goods” and ““Exhibits of Goods With the Probability of Infringement” have been
kept extremely low for this fiscal year as well.
(ii) Flea-Ma
This fiscal year, as in previous year, we verified eight services.
In six services categorized in Group 1, the occurrence rate of infringement has been low bothfor “Exhibits of Infringing Goods” and “Exhibits of Goods With the Probability of Infringement.”
We would like to point out about one of these services. Its infringement occurrence rate wasquite high in the initial year. However, after it utilized knowledge about infringing goods andknow-how on how to deal with them through the CIPP, it was able to improve to the level ofGroup 1. We believe that this is noteworthy.
Two services in Group 2 had a relatively high occurrence rate in the last fiscal year and also
in the year before. This was because their services were abused by those who live overseas
who exhibited infringing goods in a concentrated manner. As a result, these services could
not cope with the removals of these goods in a timely fashion. However, they have shown
their commitment to proactively act in removing the goods and other measures from the
beginning. We could confirm some improvements in the situation. During this fiscal year, theoccurrence rate was curbed to some extent. We hope they will move up to Group 1 in next
fiscal year.
(iii) Summary
As we have reported so far, we are able to confirm that the measures to combat rightsinfringing goods through the CIPP are working because even the Platformers who had had
a high ratio of infringing goods occurrence could accumulate and share knowledge about
these goods and how to deal with them through the CIPP. As a result, the prevention of the
9/14

distribution of the infringing goods through their services drastically improved.
In particular, following a major revision and implementation of the Guidelines in the previous
fiscal year, the exhibits of rights-infringing goods, which are regulated under the Guidelines,
were curbed this fiscal year. We believe that, as a result, the overall exhibit ratio of rightsinfringing goods was curbed. We conclude that it is important to share judging criteria of"infringing goods exhibits" between Rights Holders and CtoC Platformers through the
Guidelines and others.
(4) Others
In this fiscal year, we were very much affected by troubles caused by the coronavirus
epidemic, which made it difficult for us to take active measures. Therefore, we could not fully
discuss an agenda of new measures to map out more accurate verification methods which
are more suited to each CtC Platformers' services. However, this continues to be an
important issue.
In addition, based on the voluntary investigation, we plan to review various issues at that timein more detail and to find countermeasures. We believe it is important that we continue tomake recommendations for revising the Guidelines and various measures to prevent the
distribution of infringing goods.
By the way, after doing effectiveness verification for last several years, we feel that a situation
has arisen where it is difficult to deploy measures to prevent infringing goods' distribution ina rapid manner. This is due to a large volume of offers of infringing goods, probably fromparticipants from overseas, and an increase in infringing goods' exhibits which are difficult to
directly or indirectly judge whether they are illegal goods based on their images or productexplanations. Because of this situation, the efforts of the CIPP, which respects both Rights
Holders' as well as CtoC Platformers' stances and offers a forum for both sides to takemeasures jointly, are being put to the test.
2. A Summary of Activities for This Fiscal YearIn this fiscal year, in view of the effects caused by the spread of coronavirus, the schedule ofour meetings was postponed. Therefore, we didn’t review guidelines in the Guidelines
Committee and only implemented effectiveness verification at the Effectiveness Verification
Committee.
10/14

On effectiveness verification, it was confirmed that we continued to force down theoccurrence rate of infringed goods in Group 1 by promoting a “Japanese approach” in which
both Rights Holders and CtoC Platformers respect each other’s positions and collaboratively
stand up against infringers.
In this fiscal year, we at the CIPP were concerned that the rights-infringing goods’ distribution
will increase with the increase in volume of goods in the e-commerce market following the
new lifestyles. However, it was reported that the number of removals instigated by
Platformers was more than in other years1 and the appearance ratio of infringing-goods was
kept low. We believe that this was achieved by Platformers’ voluntary measures including
removals of such goods2.
Based on the results at the effectiveness verification for this fiscal year, we were able to showthat our measures have been working suitably.
As for the Third Committee, it invited the relevant government ministries and agencies andhad discussions about measures to eradicate IPR-infringing goods which come to Japanthrough cross border trades. The Committee will continue to consider effective measures in
the next fiscal year.
Regarding the state and government’s actions about consumer protection, in December 2019,
the Consumer Affairs Agency set up a review group “to facilitate the environment for
consumer transactions using digital platforms” and held a meeting3. On April 28, 2021, “theAct for the Protection of Consumers who use Digital Platforms” was enacted which rules thefacilitation of the environment to protect consumers.

1 We should note that the number of removals for each fiscal year cannot be simply compared because thenumber of businesses which release the figures and the number of members vary each year.
2. We would like to add some points made at the CIPP meetings. If we take consideration of the time whenrights-infringing goods were distributed, the situations of COVID-19 in each area in foreign countries may be
influencing the appearance of rights-infringing goods in each Platformer in Japan. Therefore, it wassuggested that we should continue to keep our eyes on the influx of rights-infringing goods through crossborder transactions.
3 A review group “to facilitate the environment for consumer transactions using digital platforms” at theConsumer Affairs Agency https://www.caa.go.jp/about_us/about/plans_and_status/digital_platform/

11/14

The Act is applied to digital platforms where BtoC (business-to-consumers) transactions are
conducted. It requires the operators of these platforms to investigate when troubles occur
and to make efforts to check the sellers’ identities. It also defines that the government can
ask the operators to remove listing of goods and has the right to demand release of thesellers’ identification information. It continues to be important to voluntarily implement
measures for consumer protection by not only BtoC platformers but also other platformers.
We believe that the cooperation between Rights Holders and Platformers in a commercial
field, such as the CIPP, will become more vital. At the CIPP, the Third Committee will continue
to discuss BtoC Platform issues.
Through joint work by Platformers and Rights Holders, the CIPP’s efforts will drive forward
voluntary actions to prevent the distribution of IPR-infringing goods. We believe that these
efforts are very much meaningful as a scheme of cooperation for consumer protection among
private businesses.
In the future, when the related government ministries and agencies review measures for
consumer protection, we hope that they will consult efforts by private businesses to move
forward with facilitating the environment for consumer protection.
We will continue to release the results of our measures and discuss how to deal with new
type of infringement.
Various Statistical Data
■ Number of goods exhibited (Unit: 10,000)▷Total figures of seven out of eight official members of the CIPP.
▷To calculate, we measured the number of items on offer at a certain time on a certain day
in December of the relevant year and then calculated the daily average as “the total numberof goods exhibited.”▷It is difficult to compare figures year-by-year and see a trend because the number of
12/14

Platformers investigated differ at the time when the data were taken.
■ Number of self-deletions▷Total figures of seven out of eight official members of the CIPP.
▷One out of the seven platformers does not keep records of self-deletions by the type of
infringement in fiscal 2018 and 2019. Therefore, their figures were added only to the total
figures.
▷As in the case of the table about the number of goods exhibited, it is difficult to compare
figures year-by-year and discover a trend.
■ Number of deletion requests from Rights Holders▷Total figures of seven out of eight official members of the CIPP.
▷The figures include the deletions of individual items as well as deletions made after removalsof sellers from the service.
▷ Some Rights Holders change services and goods that they focus on during theirsurveillance in order to effectively combat the infringement of IPR. Therefore, it is difficult tocompare figures year-by-year and demonstrate a trend.

13/14

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

14/14