April 19, 2011
To: Secretariat of Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters, Cabinet Secretariat
Council for Intellectual Property Protection on Internet (CIPP)
CIPP Report for FY 2010
As you have already known as a participant, since FY 2005, the CIPP has been committed tothe collaborative activities on the private-sector level by inviting the Secretariat of IntellectualProperty Strategy Headquarters, Cabinet Secretariat, National Police Agency, Ministry ofEconomy, Trade and Industry, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Agency for
Cultural Affairs, and Japan Patent Office as observers in order to solve the problem of thedistribution of intellectual property rights (IPR) infringing goods arising from Internet auctions.
We hope this report will help you plan IPR protection policies for FY 2011 as it represents aconsensus of right holders (individuals and organizations) and Internet auction operators.
[Overview]
1. Report of the Effectiveness Verification Committee
We confirmed that the percentage of auctioned infringing goods had remained at a low level
since the establishment of the Effectiveness Verification Committee as a result of theimplementation of certain measures including voluntary patrols by auction operators andremovals upon notice from right holders. Furthermore, steady decline of the infringement
rate and other improvements were found in the auction operators who had joined in theCIPP during the last fiscal year.
2. Results of Publicity Activities (Increasing Awareness of “Japanese Approach”)
In order to promote the “Japanese Approach,” an English translation of the CIPP Report for
FY 2009 was produced and published on our web site. Meanwhile, we started a new
initiative by introducing the aims of the CIPP to non-member right holders (organizations).
3. Report of the Guidelines Committee
The “Guidelines for the Prevention of Distribution of Internet IPR Infringing Goods” wererevised and put into practice in January 2011 as the Guidelines Committee was established1

to organize the matters common both to right holders (organizations) and auction operators
for the purpose of sharing renewed common understandings based on the reality of thecurrent distribution through auctions.

21. Report of the Effectiveness Verification Committee(1) Survey
This fiscal year we again established an “Effectiveness Verification Committee” consisting ofthe individuals who were actually in charge of removal requests / voluntary removals, andcarried out a verification by dividing targets into two groups: those which were judged as
infringement of a copyright or trademark based on their on-screen descriptions and images andwould allow right holders to make suspension requests to auction operators (Table 1), and thosewhich would be deemed to be infringing goods based on various pieces of information
indicating that their right holders would definitely claim they were infringing goods if they werepurchased and checked by the right holders although there was no direct ground in the provided
information allowing auction operators to remove such goods (Table 2). Please note that theverification was carried out based on the unrevised guidelines because it would take a certain
period of time to disseminate and actually put into practice guidelines although the purpose of
the verification was to find that the certain measures including voluntary patrols by auction
operators and removals upon notice from right holders were effectively functioning. Details of
the implementation overview are as indicated in Annex 1.
As in the previous year, the verification was carried out not only for Group 1 (three membercompanies, Tables 1 and 2) as stated in the implementation overview but also for Group 2 (twomember companies, Tables 3 and 4), and Group 3 (one non-member company, Tables 5 and 6)
that is inferred to take almost no action against IP infringing goods.
[Definitions of Groups]
Percentage of auctioned IPR-infringing
goods meeting the requirements specified
in the guidelines

Percentage of auctioned items which rightholders (organizations) deemed were highly
likely to be infringing goods from an
objective viewpoint although therequirements specified in the Guidelines
were not met

Group 1Low

Low

Group 2Low

HighGroup 3HighHigh* Group 1 refers to the auction operators, who have low percentages in both the auctionedIPR-infringing goods meeting the requirements specified in the guidelines and those which rightholders deemed were highly likely to be infringing goods from an objective viewpoint although therequirements specified in the Guidelines were not met.

3

* Group 2 refers to the auction operators, who have low percentages in the auctioned infringing
goods but have high percentages in those highly likely to be infringing goods.
* Group 3 refers to the auction operators, who have high percentages in both the auctioned
infringing goods and those highly likely to be infringing goods.

(2) Verification Results[Group 1 (Yahoo, DeNA, Rakuten)]TrademarkVerification
Percentage
Parameter

Copyright
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

Total
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

2008

13,334

1.39%

6,740

0.91%

20,074

1.23%

2009

4,540

1.28%

7,433

1.22%

11,973

1.24%

2010

3,019

0.43%

9,068

0.77%

12,0870.69%

Table 1: Percentages of auctioned IPR-infringing goods meeting the requirements specified
in the guidelines
TrademarkVerification
Percentage
Parameter

Copyright
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

Total
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

2008

13,334

0.19%

6,740

1.75%

20,074

0.72%

2009

4,540

0.24%

7,433

0.93%

11,973

0.67%

2010

3,019

0.36%

9,068

1.61%

12,087

1.30%

Table 2: Percentages of auctioned items which right holders (organizations) deemed werehighly likely to be infringing goods from an objective viewpoint
although the requirements specified in the Guidelines were not met[Group 2 (Other member companies, two entities)]
TrademarkVerification
Percentage
Parameter

Copyright
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

Total
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

2008

–––––

–

2009

225

6.22%

38

0.00%

263

5.32%

2010

242

1.65%

161

1.86%

403

1.74%

Table 3: Percentages of auctioned IPR-infringing goods meeting the requirements specified
in the guidelines4Trademark
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

Copyright
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

Total
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

2008––––––

2009

225

4.89%

38

26.32%

263

7.98%

2010

242

17.36%

161

0.62%

403

10.67%

Table 4: Percentages of auctioned items which right holders (organizations) deemed werehighly likely to be infringing goods from an objective viewpoint although the requirements
specified in the Guidelines were not met[Group 3 (Non-member companies, two entities)]
TrademarkVerification
Percentage
Parameter

Copyright
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

Total
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

2008––––––

2009

451

69.62%

19

0.00%

470

66.81%

2010

300

84.33%

55

0.00%

355

71.27%

Table 5: Percentages of auctioned IPR-infringing goods meeting the requirements
specified in the guidelines
TrademarkVerification
Percentage
Parameter

Copyright
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

Total
Verification
Percentage
Parameter

2008––––––

2009451

25.50%

190.00%470

24.47%

2010

300

15.33%

55

9.09%

355

14.37%

Table 6: Percentages of auctioned items which right holders (organizations) deemed werehighly likely to be infringing goods from an objective viewpoint
although the requirements specified in the Guidelines were not met(3) Analysis
Group 1 (Table 1) taking proactive actions against IPR-infringing goods partially shows an
extremely small increase but is stabilized at a lower level in general. Although the figures inGroup 2 (Table 3) is less favorable than those in Group 1 (Table 1), one of the two operators5

steadily decreased percentages of infringing goods in trademarks. We hope that they will further
strive to make improvements by enhancing their patrols, confirming identification, orimplementing any other alternative measures.
On the other hand, the verification on a non-CIPP member company, which was carried out
as in the previous fiscal year, showed that both the percentages of infringing goods andprobability remained at a high level and that there was no sign of responding to requests for
improvement from right holders and others.
Please note that the percentages of auctioned items, which were highly likely to be infringing
goods from an objective viewpoint although the requirements specified in the Guidelines were notmet, increased from the previous fiscal year but this was primarily because part of the verification
criteria were revised by the Effectiveness Verification Committee. For more information, see

Annex 1.
2. Results of Publicity Activities (Increasing Awareness of “Japanese Approach”)
As in the previous fiscal year, English translation of the report for FY 2009 is posted on theCIPP website. We have so far raised awareness of general Internet auction users 1 and this fiscalyear, took an action against IPR-infringing goods. As a result of the efforts since the foundation,measures based on the “Japanese Approach” were disseminated in order to attract attention ofright holders (organizations) to the CIPP’s activities.2
3. Establishment of the Guidelines Committee
Since the formulation of the “Guidelines for the Prevention of Distribution of Internet IPR
Infringing Goods” in 2008, individual companies have independently refined their removalcriteria. However, sellers of IPR infringing goods had adopted increasingly sophisticatedtechniques over time and with social changes, and therefore the Guidelines Committee wasestablished to organize understandings among old and new members for the purpose of sharing
renewed common understandings. The revised guidelines are as indicated in Annex 2. (Please1

This refers to the experimental awareness-raising activities aimed at buyers of illegal items
through the cooperation of some right holders and auction operators. For more information, see theCIPP Report for FY 2006. (http://www.cipp.jp/pdf/060605.pdf)
2This refers to Japan’s unique problem solution, “cooperation of right holders and auction operators
in working on problems will produce results.” For more information, see the CIPP Report for FY
2007. (http://www.cipp.jp/pdf/080331.pdf)

6note that the guidelines are partially published because publication of the full text would resultin disclosing how to auction infringing goods.)
4. Summary
The CIPP meeting has been held 22 times during the past five years after its foundation. The
original member operators and right holders (organizations) have further deepened the mutual
understanding while the new member operators and right holders (organizations) have actively
strived to protect intellectual property rights for sound development of the Internet. As a result,favorable numerical results are found in the effectiveness and verification for each fiscal year.
The CIPP will continuously promote Japan’s unique problem solution (Japanese Approach),“cooperation of right holders and auction operators in working on problems will produce
results.” Next fiscal year, enhanced protection of intellectual property rights will be promoted
through a system for closer communications between the CIPP member operators and rightholders (organizations). At the same time, we will further strengthen our power ofdissemination to the international community for example by redesigning our website.

7

ANNEX
Changes in the Numbers of Voluntary Removals, Overall Auctioned Items, and Removal
Requests

Copyright (Voluntary Removals)

Trademark (Voluntary Removals)

2007

2008

2009

2007

2010

Trademark (Removal Requests)

2007

2008

2009

2008

2009

2010

Copyright (Removal Requests)

2007

2010

2008

2009

2010(a) Voluntary Removals
Table 7 shows the voluntary removals by auction operators. As in the previous fiscal year,
practice was properly carried out in accordance with the “Guidelines for Prevention of theDistribution of Intellectual Property Rights Infringing Goods.”
Trademark

Copyright

Total

2007

748,416

187,909936,3252008

524,80252,801

577,6032009

180,253

29,202

209,455

2010

74,02538,338112,363

Table 7: Voluntary Removals by Group 1 (Three Member Operators) in Past Four Years8

(b) Overall Auctioned Items in Major Auction Sites
Yahoo! Auction

Rakuten Auction

BiddersMOBAOKU

2007

16,500,000

530,000

2,800,000

3,100,000

2008

18,170,000

1,070,000

5,370,000

3,340,000

2009

22,500,000

2,050,000

6,380,000

3,640,000

2010

22,120,000

2,840,000

7,660,000

4,510,000

Table 8: Overall Auctioned Items in Major Auction Sites
The figures on Yahoo! Auction, Rakuten Auction and MOBAOKU represent their daily averagevalues in December while the figures on Bidders represent the total of auctioned items as of theend of December.
(c) Removal Requests from Right Holders

Trademark

Copyright

Design Right

Total

2007

30,907365

231,2742008

46,747294

047,041

2009

34,1296,542

040,6712010

40,2004,826

045,026

Table 9: Removal Requests from Right Holders* Removal requests were directed to five companies: Yahoo! Auction, Rakuten Auction, Bidders
Auction, MOBAOKU, and girls auction. (Note that girls auction was added in December 2007.)* The figures on removal requests from right holders include the cases where individual auctioned
items or IDs of the sellers were suspended.
* Since some right holders change target auction sites to monitor infringing goods each year and thenumber of removal requests from right holders depends on the target auction site chosen, it isdifficult to simply compare the figures year by year.
* The number of copyright-related removal requests increased during 2009 because right holders
intensively made removal requests as infringing goods were auctioned on a recurring basis in certain
contents. The year 2010 shows the same tendency.

9REFERENCE
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 their own
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 values of bothaspects.

10