The Council for Intellectual Property
Protection on Internet (CIPP)
Report for Fiscal Year 2019

October 2020
Council for Intellectual Property Protection on Internet (CIPP)

1

[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 in order to clearly show the effectiveness ofvoluntary 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 3), the volume of distribution in the markets generallyexpanded. Considering this factor, we believe that the effectiveness of verification measuresagainst infringement through the CIPP continues to be effective. Meanwhile, one of thecharacteristics in recent years is that counterfeit goods' transactions are concentrated inspecific services. Keeping this in mind, we believe that it is vital to continue the verification inall services to prevent the distribution of infringing goods.
● For Group 1, we confirmed that the occurrence rate of IPR-infringing goods has been kept
at a low level, as in the last fiscal year, as a result of CIC Platformers’ voluntary patrols andremovals of such goods by alerts from Rights Holders.
● As for Group 2, a CtoC Platformer which was categorized in Group 3 in last fiscal year
has been moved to Group 2 has shown some improvement but the violation ratio increased
this fiscal year. We should strengthen and continue measures to reduce the distribution ofinfringing goods.
● As for Group 3, the infringement ratio at a CtoC Platformer has improved a lot comparedto the level of Group 1 over the past two years. If their work continues in this direction thisyear, it will be moved up to Group 1 in the next fiscal year.
2. A Report from the Guidelines Committee● The committee discussed how the “Guidelines for the Prevention of Distribution of IPR
2

(Intellectual Property Rights)-Infringing Goods on the Internet” (from here on referred to asthe “Guidelines”), which had been revised in fiscal 2017, were implemented and what thelatest infringement cases were.
● The committee made a series of discussions to improve the Guidelines to better deal withpreventing the infringing goods' distribution in line with the recent trends. It made asubstantial revision for the effective verification for the next fiscal year.
3. A Report from the Third Committee● The Third Committee discussed how it can cooperate with Platformers for the "Copied
Goods Combat Campaign" conducted by the Japan Patent Office International Cooperation
Division in fiscal 2019.
● The committee was provided information regarding the latest measures to combat thecounterfeit goods and the trends by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry's Office forIntellectual Property Right Infringement. It was also briefed by the Customs Clearance
Division of the Customs and Tariff Bureau at the Finance Ministry about how IPR-infringing
goods are distributed through cross-border transactions. Based on these, the committee
discussed how the Customs and the Platformers can cooperate with each other and whatkind of a legal framework should be built and other related issues.

31. A Report from the Effectiveness Verification Committee(1) The Effectiveness Verification Method
This year, as in previous years, we set up operational procedures (please see the document
2 “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 the effectiveness verification
based on these procedures.
① The scope of effectiveness verification
For this fiscal year as well, we decided to examine eight services, including Auction as well
as Flea-Ma 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 inthe 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(“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 of4Infringement”).
③Grouping of CtoC Platformers
We divided CtoC Platformers’ services into Groups 1 to 3 by the occurrence rate of infringing
goods’ exhibits. This will 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): One service 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): One service belonged to this group.

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

FY2017

Copyright

TrademarkTotal

FY2018FY2019Group 1# ofverified
items
2,972% ofOccurrence
Rate
0.07%

# ofverified
items
2,427% ofOccurrence
Rate
0.07%

# of
verified
items
1,513

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.00%

Group 2――――――

Group 3―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

2,147

0.09%

2,062

0.44%

2,354

0.25%

Group 2―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3―

―

――

―

―

Group 1

5,119

0.08%

4,489

0.30%

Group 2―

――

―

―

―

Group 3―

―

―

―

―

―

3,867

0.16%

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

FY2017

Copyright

TrademarkTotal

FY2018FY2019Group 1# ofverified
items
2,972% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.64%

# of
verified
items
2,427

% ofOccurrence
Rate
0.01%

# of
verified
items
1,513

% ofOccurrence
Rate
3.37%

Group 2――――――

Group 3―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 1

2,147

3.02%

2,062

0.02%

2,354

1.27％

Group 2―

―

―

―

―

―

Group 3―

―――

―

―

Group 1

5,119

1.64%

4,489

0.02%

3,867

2.09%

Group 2―

―――

―

―

Group 3―

――

―

―

―

6

7

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

FY2017

Copyright

TrademarkTotal

FY2018Group 1# ofverified
items
6,430

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.26%

Group 2―

Group 3

FY2019# ofverified
items
3,506

% of
Occurrence
Rate
1.06%

# of
verified
items
2,581

% of
Occurrence
Rate
0.08%

―

705

0.14%

337

0.30%

477

26.20%

76

0.00%

30

0.00%

Group 1

5,093

1.06%

4,389

2.96%

5,321

0.41%

Group 2―

―

1,083

4.16%

746

13.94%

Group 32,302

56.25%

753

0.93%

608

0.82%

Group 1

11,523

0.61%

7,895

2.12%

7,902

0.30%

Group 2―

―

1,788

2.57%

1,0839.70%

Group 32,779

41.22%

829

0.84%

638

0.78%

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

FY2017

Copyright

TrademarkTotal

FY2018FY2019Group 1# ofverified
items
6,430

% of
Occurrence
Rate
1.07%

# of
verified
items
3,506

% of
Occurrence
Rate
2.31%

# of
verified
items
2,581

% of
Occurrence
Rate
5.50%

Group 2――

705

5.25%

337

0.00%

Group 3

477

0.00%

76

26.32%

30

6.67%

Group 1

5,093

1.19%

3,837

9.56％

5,321

1.86%

Group 2――

1,083

14.59%

74612.33%

Group 3

2,302

3.30%

753

6.11%

608

3.29%

Group 1

11.523

1.13%

7,343

6.10%

7,902

3.05%

Group 2――

1,788

10.91%

1,083

8.49%

Group 3

2,779

1.65%

829

7.96%

638

3.45%

8

＊There were no services in Group 2 in fiscal 2017.

9

10

(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 we verified six services.
In four services categorized in Group 1, the occurrence rate of infringement has been low
both for “Exhibits of Infringing Goods” and “Exhibits of Goods With the Probability ofInfringement.”
A service categorized in Group 2 is a CtoC Platformer which had been moved from Group 3
to Group 2 last fiscal year. It has shown initiative to meet removal requests and we can see
some improvement. However, their system was misused by people who are believed to liveoverseas. They exhibited infringing goods in a concentrated fashion. The service operator
says that they could not remove all of these goods. As a result, the infringement occurrence
rate rose slightly. Therefore, it is necessary to continue to strengthen countermeasures.
As for a service categorized in Group 3, their infringement occurrence rate was quite high in
the initial year. However, after they utilized knowledge about infringing goods and know-how
on how to deal with them through the CIPP, during the last and this fiscal year, they wereable to curb the occurrence rate to equal the same level as in Group 1. It is expected thatthey will move up to Group 1.
(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 the11distribution of the infringing goods through their services drastically improved.
From this fiscal year, through the CIPP's Guidelines Committee, we could share information
about the latest conditions, keywords and other signals that show infringing goods'exhibitions. We began our work for a drastic revision of the Guidelines. By doing theseactivities, the exhibits of these goods were curbed. It has been confirmed that it is important
to share judging criteria of "infringing goods exhibits" between Rights Holders and CtoC
Platformers through the Guidelines and others.
However, on the other hand, we have noticed that those who offer "infringing goods exhibits"
have abused specific Platformers in a concentrated manner this fiscal year as in last fiscalyear. Therefore, it is necessary that measures to prevent illegal goods' distribution should betaken in a cross-service way.
(4) Others
In this fiscal year, we have tackled an issue of mapping out more accurate verification
methods which are more suited to each CtC Platformers' services. To solve this issue, webegan to start a voluntary investigation in cooperation with Rights Holders. We will beanalyzing the results of the investigation and continue to try to find a new verification methodand its validity.
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 will continue
to make recommendations for revising the Guidelines and various measures to prevent thedistribution 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.
This is due to a large volume of offers of infringing goods, probably from participants fromoverseas, an increase in infringing goods' exhibits which are difficult to directly or indirectly
judge whether they are illegal goods based on their images or product explanations. Becauseof 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 take measures jointly, are being putto the test.

122. A Report from the Guidelines Committee
On the revision of the Guidelines
Because good results were achieved when the current Guidelines and the accompanying
Guideline document were implemented, the committee agreed that the effectivenessverification should be made based on the current Guidelines.
On the accompanying Guideline document
We made a series of discussions On the accompanying Guideline document at this fiscal
year's Guidelines Committee. The document was updated to improve the current preventionof the infringing goods' distribution and a substantial revision was made for the next fiscalyear.
In addition, some of the revision proposals which were drafted this fiscal year will be
forwarded to the next fiscal year's Guidelines Committee meetings.
AgendasThe first meeting: Reviewing what should be discussed at the Guidelines Committee thisfiscal year.
Reviewing the revision in the accompanying document
The second meeting: Discussing the revisions in the accompanying document for the next
fiscal year.
Bringing suggestions for revising the accompanying document and discussing which should
be taken up
The third meeting: Discussing revisions in the accompanying document
Reviewing a revision proposal in the accompanying document and deciding which revisions
will be made3. A Summary of Activities for This Fiscal YearAs we stated so far, it has been confirmed that we continued to be able to force down the13occurrence rate of infringed goods in Group 1 to a low level this fiscal year by promoting a“Japanese approach” in which both Rights Holders and CtoC Platformers respect eachother’s positions and collaboratively stand up against infringers.
In this fiscal year, the Guidelines Committee made a major revision to the supplementary
Guidelines so that they will best cope with the trends in the recent counterfeit goods' exhibits.
The committee also agreed that it would continue to discuss the positioning of the Guidelines
and each company's measures will reflect not only the wording of the Guidelines but also
based on information about the infringed goods, which was shared among the participantsat the committee.
As for the Third Committee, it invited the relevant government ministries and agencies andhad discussions about the recent measures to combat counterfeit goods and trends as well
as how IPR-infringing goods are distributed through cross border trades and the suggested
countermeasures. The Committee will continue to review effective measures in the next fiscalyear.
We will continue to report the results of our work to Society and at the same time further ourdiscussion regarding measures to tackle new forms of infringements.

14

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 ofPlatformers 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 ofinfringement. Therefore, their figures were added only to the total figures.
▷As in the case of the above table, it is difficult to compare figures year-by-year and discovera trend.
■ Number of deletion requests from Rights Holders15▷Total figures 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.

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.

16