Date
July 27, 2017
Court
Intellectual Property High Court,
Second Division
Case Number 2017 (Gyo-Ke) 10030- A case in which, with regard to a registered trademark, "ORGANO SCIENCE", thecourt ruled that the JPO decision to the effect that the registration of the trademark is
in violation of Article 4, paragraph(1), items(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Act isappropriate, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.
References: Article 4, paragraph(1), items(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Act
Number of related rights, etc.: Invalidation Trial No. 2016-890036, Trademark
Registration No. 5417057
Summary of the Judgment
1

The plaintiff is the holder of the trademark, "ORGANO SCIENCE" (standard

letters) (Trademark Registration No. 5417057; the "Trademark"). The defendant, whoholds registered trademarks consisting of the letters or characters, "ORGANO" and "オル ガ ノ (organo)" (hereinafter referred to as "Cited Trademark 1" and "Cited
Trademark 2", respectively; and a trademark consisting of the letters or characters, "オ
ル ガ ノ (organo)" or "ORGANO", is sometimes referred to as "Defendant's
Trademark" hereinafter), filed a demand for a trial of invalidation for the Trademark byclaiming that the Trademark falls under Article 4, paragraph(1), items(xi) and (xv) of
the Trademark Act (Invalidation No. 2016-890036). The JPO rendered a trial decision
to the effect that the Trademark shall be invalidated because it should be said that theregistration of the Trademark is in violation of Article 4, paragraph(1), items (xi) and(xv) of the Trademark Act.
2

In the present case, the court rendered the decision to the effect that the above trial

decision is appropriate, as described below.
(1) Fame and prominence of Cited Trademarks
Due to factors such as the defendant's operations, business scale and market share,business deployment as a group companies, introduction of the company's operations
in media, and how the company is advertised, Cited Trademarks had become wellknown and prominent among traders and consumers as representing the defendant's
business of water treatment equipment and the chemical business which is closely
related thereto, at the time of filing the application for registration of the Trademark.
(2) Applicability of Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xi) of the Trademark Act
The Trademark is acknowledged as a composite trademark consisting of"ORGANO" and "SCIENCE". There is not enough evidence to support that the letter
part, "ORGANO", is used as a word by itself; however, considering that "オルガノ(organo)" and "ORGANO" had become well-known and prominent as the defendant'siabbreviated name or house mark, "ORGANO" gives a strong impression of being amark for the defendant's abbreviated name or house mark. On the other hand, the letter
part, "SCIENCE", is a general term which is prevalent in society, and the function of
distinction which it plays in the entire mark is not very strong even in light of thedesignated goods and services for the Trademark. As such, the letters, "ORGANO" and"SCIENCE", constituting the Trademark are very much different from each other interms of their capability to give distinctiveness to the entire mark, and since it should
be said that the letter part, "ORGANO", is the major part of the trademark which gives
a strong and dominant impression to traders and consumers as a distinctive identifier ofsource for goods and services, it is appropriate to determine the similarity of theTrademark with Cited Trademarks by extracting said part of the Trademark forcomparison with Cited Trademarks.
The Trademark also produces the sound, "organo", from the major part of the
trademark, and since "ORGANO" is not a generally known word in Japan, said partdoes not give any special concept. On the other hand, Cited Trademarks produce thesound, "organo", respectively, and, as in the case of the Trademark, do not give any
special concept.
When the major part of the Trademark is compared with Cited Trademarks, suchcomparison cannot be made with regard to concept. Still, it can be said that Cited
Trademarks 1 and 2 are the same as the Trademark with regard to the sound of"organo", and since it can also be said that Cited Trademark 1 is similar to theTrademark in appearance as well, it is appropriate to acknowledge that the Trademark
and Cited Trademarks are similar.
Accordingly, Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xi) of the Trademark Act is applicablewith regard to "chemical agents" from among the designated goods.
(3) Applicability of Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xv) of the Trademark Act
The Trademark and the Defendant's Trademarks are similar, and furthermore, theDefendant's Trademarks have a certain level of uniqueness, in addition to being wellknown and prominent. Also, the designated goods and services of the Trademark areclosely related to the goods and services pertaining to the defendant's business, and thedesignated goods and services of the Trademark share the same traders and consumers
as those of the goods and services pertaining to the defendant's business. Furthermore,since the defendant is a diversified company, if the Trademark is used for designatedgoods and services other than "chemical agents", there is a risk of causing themisunderstanding, based on the attention which is usually given by traders andconsumers of designated goods and services for the Trademark, that such goods andii

services are related to the defendant's goods and services, thereby creating confusion.
Accordingly, the Trademark falls under Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xv) of theTrademark Act with regard to the designated goods and services other than "chemical
agents".

iii

Judgment rendered on July 27, 20172017 (Gyo-Ke) 10030 The case of seeking rescission of JPO Decision
Date of conclusion of Oral Proceedings: May 25, 2017
Judgment
Plaintiff: Organo Science Kabushiki Kaisha
Defendant: Organo Corporation
Main Text
1
2

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
The plaintiff shall bear the court costs.
Facts and ReasonsNo. 1 Judicial decision sought by the plaintiff
The plaintiff seeks that the court rescind the JPO decision, rendered by the JPO on
December 20, 2016, in the Case of Invalidation Trial No.2016-890036.
No. 2

Outline of the case

The present case is an action for rescission of the JPO decision of invalidation rendered
in a demand for a trial for invalidation of trademark registration. The issues concerned
are as follows: (i) Whether or not the Trademark, as shown below, which is held by theplaintiff, is the same as or similar to the cited trademarks, as shown below, which areheld by the defendant (Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xi) of the Trademark Act); and (ii)
Whether or not the Trademark has a risk of causing confusion with the goods orservices pertaining to the defendant's business (Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xv) of theTrademark Act).
1

The Trademark

The plaintiff is the holder of the Trademark, as shown below (Exhibit Ko 1 and Ko 2).
ORGANO SCIENCE (standard letters)(i)

Registration number: 5417057(ii)

Filing date: June 16, 2010

(iii)

Date of decision of registration: May 13, 2011(iv)

Date of registration: June 10, 20111

(v)Classification of goods and services, and designated goods and services

At the time of registration of establishment of the right, the designated goods andservices were as follows: "Aromatic organic compounds; aliphatic organic compounds;
organic halogenides; alcohols; phenols; ethers; aldehydes and ketones; organic acids
and

salts

thereof;esters;nitrogencompounds;

heterocyclic

compounds;

organophosphorus compounds; organometallic compounds; chemical preparations;unprocessed plastics; organic semiconductor compounds; electroconductive organic
compounds" in Class 1; and "Synthesis and processing of organic compounds,chemical products, and unprocessed plastics" in Class 40. Later, parts of theregistration were deleted by way of a partial waiver, accepted on March 18, 2016, fordeletion of "chemical preparations; unprocessed plastics" in Class 1 from among thedesignated goods, and another partial waiver, accepted on June 17, 2016, for deletionof "synthesis and processing of organic compounds, chemical products, andunprocessed plastics" in Class 40 from among the designated services (Exhibit Ko 2,
Ko 209, and Ko 210).
2

Details of procedures taken at JPO

On May 31, 2016, the defendant filed a demand for a trial for invalidation of trademark
registration to the JPO by claiming that the Trademark falls under Article 4,paragraph(1), items(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Act (Exhibit Otsu 1, Invalidation
Trial No.2016-890036).
On December 20, 2016, the JPO rendered the JPO decision to the effect that the"registration of Registration No. 5417057 shall be invalidated" (hereinafter referred toas "the JPO Decision"), and a copy of the decision was sent to the plaintiff on
January 4, 2017.
3

Gist of reasons for the JPO Decision(1) The cited trademarks (Cited Trademark 1 and Cited Trademark 2 are hereinaftercollectively referred to as "Cited Trademarks").
A

Cited Trademark 1 (Exhibits Ko 3 and Ko 4)(i) Registration number: 1490120(ii) Filing date: April 5, 1976
2

(iii)

Date of registration: November 27, 1981

(iv)

Classification of goods and services, and designated goods and services

At the time of registration of establishment of the right, the designated goods andservices were as follows: "Chemical products" in Class 1 (excluding those inclasses other than Class 1). On July 26, 1982, however, partial deletion resulting
from a waiver was registered with regard to "inorganic industrial chemicals,organic industrial chemicals, and gums and adhesives", and on October 9, 2002,
the remaining designated goods were rewritten to read as "surface-active chemical
preparations, chemical preparations" in Class 1, and registered accordingly.
B

Cited Trademark 2 (Exhibits Ko 4 and Ko 5)(i) Registration number: 1490119(ii) Filing date: April 5, 1976(iii) Date of registration: November 27, 1981(iv) Classification of goods and services, and designated goods and services
At the time of registration of establishment of the right, the designated goods andservices were as follows: "Chemical products" in Class 1 (excluding those in classes
other than Class 1). On July 26, 1982, however, partial deletion resulting from a
waiver was registered with regard to "inorganic industrial chemicals, organic
industrial chemicals, and gums and adhesives", and on October 16, 2002, theremaining designated goods were rewritten to read as "surface-active chemical
preparations, chemical preparations" in Class 1, and registered accordingly.
(2) Fame and prominence of Cited Trademarks and trademarks consisting of the letters,"オルガノ (organo)" or "ORGANO" (a trademark consisting of the letters, "オルガノ (organo)" or "ORGANO", hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Defendant's
Trademark")
The defendant, a comprehensive water treatment engineering company, is a wellestablished company in Japan, and its group companies operate in a broad range offields, including the manufacture and sale of relevant products, and provision of
relevant services. It is acknowledged that the marks of "オルガノ (organo)" andits English equivalent, "ORGANO", had become widely known in the industry inJapan as representing the defendant's abbreviated name and the defendant's house3

mark, even before the filing date of the application for registration of theTrademark.
The defendant prepares and issues a general catalogue and individual catalogues
for various products, with the Trademark Used 1 or Trademark Used 2 (these
trademarks are hereinafter collectively referred to "Trademarks Used"), as shown
below.
Trademark Used 1

Trademark Used 2

With regard to the figure part in Trademark Used 1 or Trademark Used 2 and theletter part of "ORGANO" or "オルガノ (organo)", there is no special reason to
identify and acknowledge the figure part and the letter part in a unified manner at
all times in terms of appearance, concept, and sound. As such, it should be said thatthe figure part and the letter part should respectively function as independent
identifiers for the goods and services which are covered by the mark from thosewhich are not covered by the mark.
Furthermore, the following facts can be acknowledged, among other facts: Water
treatment chemicals such as ion-exchange resin are indispensable for performing
the business of water treatment equipment, which is the defendant's main
operation; and the defendant focuses on developing technologies related tochemistry and chemicals, and this aspect of the defendant's business is often
covered in newspapers and the like.
In such a case, it is acknowledged that the Defendant's Trademark, which consist of"オルガノ (organo)" and its English equivalent, "ORGANO", has been widely
known among traders and consumers of the electronics industry, including
semiconductor makers, as well as relevant fields such as chemistry and food,nuclear plants, and power plants in Japan, as representing the business of water
treatment equipment pertaining to the defendant's main operation, including the4manufacture and sale of pure water production equipment, ultrapure waterproduction equipment, waste water treatment equipment, and other such equipment,
as well as the chemicals business, including the manufacture and sale of ionexchange resin, water treatment chemicals, and the like, which is closely related tothe business of water treatment equipment, and that the prominence of the
defendant's operations was still ongoing as of the date of the decision forregistration of the Trademark.
(3) First Reason for Invalidation (applicability of Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xi) of
the Trademark Act)
A

Similarity between trademarks

The letter part, "ORGANO", and the letter part, "SCIENCE", of the Trademark
have a space of about the size of one letter in-between the letter parts. Not only arethese letter parts easily observed as being separate in appearance, the sound,"organo science", is rather long. As for the letter part, "SCIENCE", of theTrademark, it is well-known in Japan as an English word meaning "science", andeven in light of the designated goods and services, the function of identifier asserved by this letter part is not so strong. To the contrary, the letter part,"ORGANO", of the Trademark is an English word meaning "organic", and it canbe acknowledged that its equivalent in katakana characters, "オルガノ (organo)",was not a generally well-known word in Japan at the time when the application for
the Trademark was filed.
In such case, the letter part, "ORGANO", and the letter part, "SCIENCE",
constituting the Trademark are very different from each otherin terms of the levelof prevalence of the meanings of the words and in terms of the capability ofidentification. When the fact that the Cited Trademarks consisting of the letters,"ORGANO" and "オルガノ (organo)", are well-known is also taken into account,the letter part, "ORGANO", of the Trademark gives a strong and dominant
impression to traders and consumers as an identifier of source of goods andservices.
Accordingly, it can be said that the major part of the Trademark is the letter part,"ORGANO", of the entire configuration. Therefore, the Trademark produces thesound, "organo science", from the letter part when it is pronounced in its entirety,
as well as the simple sound, "organo", from the letter part, "ORGANO", which is
the major part. As such, the Trademark has no special concept.
5

On the other hand, Cited Trademark 1 consisting of the letters, "ORGANO",
produces the sound, "organo", according to the letters of its configuration, and thisis a coined word having no special meaning. As for Cited Trademark 2 consistingof the characters, " オ ル ガ ノ (organo)", it produces the sound, "organo",according to the characters of its configuration, and this is also a coined word like
Cited Trademark 1.
Although the major part of the Trademark, "ORGANO", cannot be compared with
Cited Trademark 1 in terms of concept, the two marks are similar in appearance,
and the two also share the sound of "organo". As such, it should be said that theTrademark and Cited Trademarks are similar trademarks.
B

Similarity of designated goods

The designated goods of the Trademark and the designated goods of Cited
Trademarks share the same goods, "chemical preparations", among the respective
designated goods. After the decision for registration of the Trademark was made,the registration of the trademark right was deleted by abandonment with regard todesignated goods such as "chemical preparations". However, since the base point intime for determining similarity pursuant to Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xi) of theTrademark Act is the time of the decision for registration of a trademark (Article 4,paragraph(3) of the Trademark Act), as long as "chemical preparations" are among
the designated goods at the time of the decision for registration of the Trademark,the above deletion of registration, which took place later in time, did not have any
influence on the determination of similarity of designated goods.
C

Summary

The Trademark and Cited Trademarks are similar, and the designated goods ofboth trademarks contain "chemical preparations". As such, registration of theTrademark is in violation of Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xi) of the Trademark Act.
(4) Reason 2 for invalidation (applicability of Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xv) of theTrademark Act)A

Level of similarity between the Trademark and the Defendant's Trademark

As described above, the Trademark and the Defendant's Trademark are similar toeach other in appearance or sound.
B

Fame and prominence of Defendant's Trademark
6

The Defendant's Trademark was well-known among traders and consumers inJapan as representing defendant's abbreviated name and the defendant's house mark,as well as the business of water treatment equipment pertaining to the defendant's
business and the chemicals business, which includes water treatment chemicals, asof the filing date of the application for registration of the Trademark and as of thedate of the decision for registration of the Trademark.
C

Level of uniqueness of the Defendant's Trademark

Since it cannot be said that the English word, "organo", and its equivalent inkatakana characters, "オルガノ (organo)", are well-known among the people inJapan as a word meaning "organic", it cannot be said that the Defendant's
Trademark is very unique, but it also cannot be said that the Defendant's
Trademark lacks uniqueness.
D

Relevance in terms of products or in terms of services and goods, andcommonality of consumers and traders
The defendant is a comprehensive water treatment engineering company with its
focus on the business of water treatment equipment and the chemicals business
which is closely related to the business of water treatment equipment. In its
operations pertaining to chemicals, the defendant engages in the manufacture andsale of chemicals such as water treatment chemicals, ion-exchange resin, and foodadditives, as well as in the manufacture and sale of heavy-metal fixatives, cleansing
agents, sterilization agents, air refresher, anti-foaming agents, remover for nonionic surfactants, high-polymer coagulants, impurity remover, rust preventives forwater supply system, hydrogen peroxide decomposition agents, sodium
hypochlorite preparations, fuel additives, boiler treatment agents, corrosion
inhibitors, and cooling water treatment agents, which contain various organic
compounds and inorganic compounds. These products and services are in demandby the electronics industry such as semiconductors and liquid crystal displays inaddition to water treatment plants for manufacture of artificial ditches andtreatment of waste water and the like, as well as various manufacturers, service
providers, power plants, national government organs, municipal governments, andthe general consumer public which require small/medium equipment or water
treatment chemicals and other chemicals.
On the other hand, designated good and designated services for the Trademark
7include goods pertaining to various types of organic compounds as well as services
pertaining to the synthesis and processing of said goods, and these goods andservices are in demand by various manufacturers which require the compounds,
which are among the designated goods, as raw materials for production, or which
require the resultant of the synthesis and processing of said compounds. In
particular, it can be said that the "organic semiconductor compounds;
electroconductive organic compounds" from among the designated goods are in
demand by the electronics industry which uses organic semiconductors and organic
electroluminescence displays as materials for production.
In that case, the designated goods and services for the Trademark and the goods
and services pertaining to the defendant's business are the same in that they bothbelong to the field of chemical preparations. In addition, since it can be said thatthe designated goods for the Trademark contain a lot of possible raw materials forchemicals pertaining to the defendant's business, it should be said that thedesignated goods and services for the Trademark and the goods and services
pertaining to the defendant's business are very much related to each other.
Furthermore, as for consumers, the Trademark and the Cited Trademarks are, inmany ways, in demand by the same consumers in that the manufacturers requiring
the compounds as raw materials are also manufacturers which require water
treatment facilities, water processing equipment, or water treatment chemical
preparations, particularly in the field of the electronics industry.
E

Diversified operation of the defendant

As of March 2011, the defendant has created a group consisting of 21 subsidiaries,
2 affiliates, and Tosoh Corporation (parent company). It engages in a diversified
operation by utilizing the business of water treatment equipment, which is its main
business, as well as the technological strength of its chemicals business, thereby
operating extensively in the fields of chemical engineering and industrial chemistry,
while at the same time conducting the sale of industrial chemicals and the sale ofwater treatment machinery, as well as the development, manufacture, and sale offood ingredients, food additives, dietary supplements, and the like, and the
manufacture and sale of factory effluent treatment equipment, among others.
F

Summary

To sum up the above, it should be said that the use of the Trademark on its
designated goods and services other than the designated goods of "chemical
8

preparations" has a risk of causing the traders and consumers to immediately recall
or conjure images of the Defendant's Trademark, creating the misunderstandingthat said goods and services pertain to the business of someone who is closely
related to the defendant in business, such as by way of the so-called parentsubsidiary relationship and as affiliates, or who belongs to a group of companies
selling products which bear the same mark, thereby creating confusion as to thesource of the goods and services.
Accordingly, the Trademark falls under a trademark which "is likely to cause
confusion" as stipulated in Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xv) of the Trademark Act.
(5) Conclusion
Since it should be said that registration of the Trademark is in violation of Article 4,paragraph(1), items(xi) and (xv) of the Trademark Act, the registration shall be
invalidated pursuant to Article 46, paragraph(1), item(i) of the same Act.
(omitted)
No. 5

Judgment by the court

1. Fame and prominence of Cited Trademarks and Defendant's Trademark
First of all, fame and prominence of Cited Trademarks and Defendant's Trademark
shall be determined.
(1) Facts constituting the premise
According to the evidences and the overall gist of proceedings, as indicated below,
the following facts can be acknowledged.
A

Overview of the defendant

The defendant was founded in 1946 under the trade name of "Nihon Organo
Shokai", which the defendant changed to the current "Organo Kabushiki
Kaisha" in 1966. In English, the defendant's trade name is "Organo
Corporation", and the defendant has used "オルガノ (organo)" and its English
equivalent, "ORGANO", as the defendant's house mark ever since thedefendant was established (Exhibit Ko 6).
B

Business descriptions of the defendant9During the mid-70's to the late 80's, the defendant experienced rapid growth,along with the rapid growth of the semiconductor industry in Japan, because
the defendant delivered ultrapure water production equipment, which isessential for manufacturing semiconductors, to semiconductor makers.
Currently, the defendant is one of the largest corporations in the fields ofindustries pertaining to comprehensive water treatment engineering. The
defendant's main business field is in the functional commodity business, which
includes the water treatment engineering business and the chemicals business,
specifically, water treatment facilities for industrial use, facilities related towater and sewerage, environmental facilities, facilities related to undergroundwater/soil cleanup, facilities related to industrial processes, facilities related tostandard type water treatment machinery, chemicals related to water treatment,
food additives, and service-based businesses, among others (Exhibits Ko 7 toKo 22).
Of the defendant's operations, the chemicals business is centered on water
treatment chemicals, which are indispensable for performing the business ofwater treatment equipment. As such, the defendant engages in the manufactureand sale of chemicals such as heavy-metal fixatives, cleansing agents,
sterilization agents, air refresher, anti-foaming agents, remover for non-ionicsurfactants, high-polymer coagulants, impurity remover, rust preventives forwater supply system, hydrogen peroxide decomposition agents, sodium
hypochlorite preparations, fuel additives, boiler treatment agents, corrosion
inhibitors, and cooling water treatment agents, which contain various organic
compounds and inorganic compounds (Exhibit Ko 16, Exhibits Ko 31 to Ko
77).
Traders and consumers for the defendant's goods and services include theelectronics industry such as semiconductors and liquid crystal displays, which
requires a large amount of ultrapure water, as well as water treatment plants for
manufacture of artificial ditches and treatment of waste water and the like,various manufacturers, service providers, power plants, national governmentorgans, municipal governments, and the general consumer public (Exhibits Ko
7 to Ko 22).
C

Defendant's business scale and market share, etc.

The sales volume of the defendant's business is 61,097,000,000 yen for the10business year ending in March, 2011 (April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011), which
is near the filing date of the application for registration of the Trademark (June16, 2010). Of the above figure, the water treatment engineering businessamounts to 40,618,000,000 yen, and the functional commodity business, which
includes the chemicals business, amounts to 20,479,000,000 yen. The sales
volume for the business year ending in March, 2012 (April 1, 2011 to March 31,2012), which is near the date of the decision for registration for the Trademark(May 13, 2011) is 68,502,000,000 yen, among which the water treatment
engineering business amounts to 49,096,000,000 yen, and the functionalcommodity business amounts to 19,405,000,000 yen (Exhibits Ko 7 and Ko 8).
Also, the defendant's market share for the ultrapure water production
equipment in 2008 is approximately 30%, the market share for the electro
deionization equipment, which is incorporated into pure water/ultrapure waterproduction equipment, is approximately 15%, and the market share for thechemicals for boiler water and cooling water is approximately 8%, all being
ranked second or third in the respective markets of the relevant industries(Exhibit Ko 15).
D

Operations as a group company

As of March 2011, the defendant has created a group consisting of 21
subsidiaries, 2 affiliates, and Tosoh Corporation (parent company), and manyof the defendant's subsidiaries contain "オルガノ (organo)" in their trade
names. In addition to its core businesses, the defendant also pursues its
management in a wide range of fields, has affiliates outside Japan, and also
engages in global operations (Exhibits Ko 6 and Ko 7).
E

Introduction of the defendant's business descriptions in media

The defendant is often covered in newspapers, magazines, and other forms of
media, in which the defendant's business descriptions are introduced (Exhibit
Ko 84, Exhibits Ko 100 to Ko 127).
For example, the Nikkei Sangyo Newspaper dated May 26, 2005 posted anarticle titled, "Japan's leading companies, Kurito Kogyo and Organo, compete
over water treatment in China" (Exhibit Ko 102). As another example, theWeekly Economist which was issued on February 5, 2008 posted an article
describing that "as for factory effluent, companies like Kurita Kogyo, Organo,and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are making more water treatment plants
11overseas" (Exhibit Ko 104). In addition, from September 18, 2006 until
September 22 of the same year, a feature article titled "Stepping Stones forTomorrow" in Fuji Sankei Business i covered five articles introducing thedefendant's business, and in the articles, the Trademark Used 2 was also shown(Exhibits Ko 105 to Ko 109).
F

Advertising by the defendant

Over a long period of time, the defendant continuously made advertisements inwhich the characters, "オルガノ (organo)", were written in a large size, in
multiple national newspapers during the period from 1964 until the date of thedecision for registration of the Trademark, as a masthead advertising (anadvertisement shown in the corner underneath the place which indicates thenewspaper's name on the front page) (Exhibits Ko 80 to Ko 83).
Also, until the date of the decision for registration for the Trademark, thedefendant made advertisements using Trademark Used 1 in magazines such as
the following: Journal of Industrial Water (issued on May 20, 2004; Exhibit
Ko 90-1); PHARM TECH JAPAN (issued on December 1, 2004; Exhibit Ko90-2); New Food Industry (issued on April 1, 2007; Exhibit Ko 90-4); andJournal of Water and Water Technology (issued on July 15, 2010; Exhibit Ko90-6).
(2) Fame and prominence of Cited Trademarks and Defendant's Trademark
From what is described above, the following facts can be acknowledged: (i)The defendant is one of the largest corporations in Japan in the field ofcomprehensive water treatment engineering, and since its establishment, thedefendant has used " オ ル ガ ノ (organo)" and its English equivalent,"ORGANO", as its house mark; (ii) The defendant's core business is thebusiness of water treatment equipment, but the scale of the functionalcommodity business, including the chemicals business, is also large, and themarket share of the defendant's main products is high; (iii) The defendant's
chemicals business is centered on water treatment chemicals, and it can be said
that this business is closely related to the business of water treatment
equipment; (iv) The defendant consists of a group of at least 20 companies, andmany of the subsidiaries not only use the characters, "オルガノ (organo)", fortheir trade names, but they also engage in businesses in a wide range of fields
12

in and outside Japan; (v) The defendant is often covered by media, which
introduce the defendant's business descriptions widely to the public; and (vi)
The defendant continuously makes advertisements in newspapers andmagazines by using the characters, "オルガノ (organo)", and Trademark Used
1, and in particular, advertisements made in newspapers are arranged in order
to be easily noticed, by taking the form of a masthead advertising and being
posted on national newspapers over a long period of time.
Based on these facts, it is appropriate to acknowledge that the showing of "オ
ルガノ (organo)" and its English equivalent, "ORGANO", had become widely
known among traders and consumers as representing the defendant's
abbreviated name or house mark even before the filing date of application for
the Trademark, and that subsequently, Trademarks Used, which contain thecharacters, "オルガノ (organo)" or its English equivalent, "ORGANO", had
become well-known and famous widely among traders and consumers by thesame point in time.
Furthermore, while Trademarks Used consist of the figure part, which isapproximately the same size as the one used in the Trademark, and the letter
part, "ORGANO" or "オルガノ (organo)", said figure part does not produce
any special concept or sound, whereas the letter parts, "ORGANO" and "オル
ガノ (organo)", have the same sound as that which is produced by the
defendant's abbreviated name and house mark, and thus it is believed that theletter part is what leaves a strong impression on traders and consumers as to thesource of goods and services. In that case, it can be said that the letter part,"ORGANO" or "オルガノ (organo)", performs the function of an identifier ofsource independently from the figure part.
Accordingly, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant's Trademark, which
consists of the letter part that is used in the Trademarks Used, had also become
well-known and famous even before the filing date of the application forregistration of the Trademark as representing the defendant's business of water
treatment equipment and the chemicals business which is closely related thereto,and that this was true as of the date of the decision for registration of theTrademark as well.
(3) Claims by the plaintiff
In response, the plaintiff claims as follows, among others, arguing against thefame and prominence of the Defendant's Trademark: (i) Although the13Defendant's Trademark is well-known in the field of the business of water
treatment equipment, it is not well-known or famous in the field of chemicals;(ii) Advertisements which the defendant has made are merely part of normal
corporate activities, and the masthead advertising on newspapers neither shows"ORGANO" nor indicates any of the chemicals which are the defendant's
products; (iii) What captures the attention of traders and consumers is thepolka-dotted figure of the Trademarks Used rather than the letter part,"ORGANO" or "オルガノ (organo)"; and (iv) The Defendant's Trademark isneither listed in the "Well-Known and Famous Trademarks in Japan" of theJapan Platform for Patent Information (J-PlatPat), nor is there any registereddefensive mark for "ORGANO" or "オルガノ (organo)".
A

However, with regard to the above (i), it can be said that, as per the abovefinding, the functional commodity business which includes the chemicals
business is, in light of the business scale, the defendant's core business alongwith the business of water treatment equipment, and furthermore, since thedefendant's business of water treatment equipment and the chemicals businessare closely related to each other, it is appropriate to acknowledge that thedefendant's water treatment engineering business had become widely known
among traders and consumers as a result of advertising and the like, and thatthe chemicals business had become widely known among traders andconsumers even before the filing date of the application for registration of theTrademark.
B

With regard to the above (ii), making an advertisement continuously overa long period of time is generally an effective method for the trademark to be
widely known among the public, and especially with regard to newspapers,
since the advertisement was made in national newspapers in the form of a
masthead advertising in an easily noticeable manner, it is appropriate toacknowledge that the Defendant's Trademark, with its "ORGANO" or "オルガノ (organo)", also became widely known among the public during that period.
The plaintiff claims that the newspaper advertisement above neither shows"ORGANO" nor indicates any chemicals. However, as per the above finding,the defendant made advertisements by showing Trademark Used 1, whichcontains the letters, "ORGANO", in magazines in addition to newspaper
14

advertisements, and furthermore, the defendant's business descriptions arewidely known among the public as a result of being covered by media manytimes. As such, it is appropriate to acknowledge that not only the showing of "オルガノ (organo)" for the masthead advertising but also the showing of"ORGANO" became widely known among the public. As for the chemicals
business, the judgment is as per what is described in the above A, and thisfinding shall not be affected by the lack of indication of chemicals in themasthead advertising.
C

With regard to the above (iii), it is appropriate to acknowledge, as per theabove finding, that the letters, "ORGANO" or "オルガノ (organo)", inTrademarks Used serve the function of an identifier of source independently of
the figure part.
DWith regard to the above (iv), the mere facts that the Defendant 's

Trademark is not listed in the "Well-Known and Famous Trademarks in Japan"of the Japan Platform for Patent Information (J-PlatPat), and that there is no
registered defensive mark for "ORGANO" or "オルガノ (organo)" do notprevent the court from finding that the Defendant's Trademark is well-known
and famous.
E

Accordingly, the plaintiff's claims are groundless.

2. First Reason for Rescission (incorrect judgment concerning First Reason forInvalidation)(1) Similarity between the Trademark and Cited Trademarks
It is acknowledged that the Trademark, "ORGANO SCIENCE", is a composite
trademark consisting of "ORGANO" and "SCIENCE". In the case of acomposite trademark, it should be said that extraction of a part of theconfiguration in order to determine the similarity of trademarks themselves bycomparing said part with a trademark of another person should not be allowed
unless said part is acknowledged as making a strong and dominant impression
on traders and consumers as an identifier of source for goods or services, orunless the remaining parts are acknowledged as not producing any sound orconcept as an identifier of source, among other such cases (refer to Supreme
Court Judgment dated September 8, 2008, Intellectual Property High Court,
15

Second Division/Civil Case Record, vol. 228, page 561).
A

Applicability of separate observation of a composite trademark

Now, first of all, whether or not the part, "ORGANO", of the Trademark can be
acknowledged as giving a strong and dominant impression on traders andconsumers as an identifier of source for goods or services shall be considered.
The parts "ORGANO" and "SCIENCE" of the Trademark consist of sixalphabetic letters and seven alphabetic letters, respectively, with a space, thesize of which is about one letter, in-between the two parts. In appearance, notonly can these letter parts be observed separately, but the sound, "organo
science", is rather long.
As for the constituent parts of the Trademark, there is not enough evidence tosupport that the letter part, "ORGANO", is used as a word in itself.
Furthermore, the same letter part is listed in an English-Japanese dictionary as aprefix meaning "organ" or "organic" (Exhibits Ko 212 and Ko 213), and while
it can be acknowledged that the same letter part is sometimes used as achemical term (Exhibit Ko 214), such use is limited, and even when comparedwith prefixes such as "aqua", "audio", and "auto", it cannot be acknowledgedthat the meaning of "ORGANO" has become widely known in Japan. As forthe equivalent of said letter part in katakana characters, "オルガノ (organo)",this word is not found in the Kojien dictionary (Exhibit Ko 134-1), which,among other factors, suggests that it is not a well-known word in Japan. Whenthe above facts are comprehensively taken into account along with the fact that,as per the finding in above 1, "オルガノ (organo)" and "ORGANO" have beenwell-known and famous as the defendant's abbreviated name or house mark, itshould be said that "ORGANO" has a strong impression as the defendant's
abbreviated name or house mark.
On the other hand, the letter part, "SCIENCE", of the Trademark is widely
known in Japan as an English word meaning "science", and it can be said thatits equivalent in katakana characters is likewise widely known, as suggested by
the fact that it is listed in the Kojien dictionary, among other factors (Exhibit
Ko 134-2). As such, it should be said that the letters, "SCIENCE", constitute a
common word which has become widespread in the society, and that, even inlight of the designated goods and services, the function of these letters as an
identifier is not so strong.
As described above, the letters, "ORGANO" and "SCIENCE", which constitute16

the Trademark, are very different from each other in terms of the respective
capabilities as an identifier, and since it should be said that the letter part,"ORGANO", is the major part which gives a strong and dominant impression
on traders and customers as an identifier of source for goods and services, it isappropriate, with regard to the Trademark, to determine similarity by extracting
the part concerned for comparison with Cited Trademarks.
B

Judgment based on comparison between the Trademark and Cited

Trademarks
Similarity of different trademarks should be determined based on the overall
observation by comprehensively taking into consideration factors such as
impression, memory, and images, which traders receive from the appearance,
concept, sound, and the like of both trademarks for comparison (refer toSupreme Court Judgment of Third Petty Bench dated February 27, 1968,
Minshu Vol. 22, No. 2, page 399). On that note, in the case of the Trademark, it
can be said that the letter part, "ORGANO", constitutes the major part of theconfiguration, so that the said major part is compared with Cited Trademarks.
The Trademark also produces the sound, "organo", from its major part, and asfor "ORGANO", since it is not a well-known word in Japan, as described above,
it should be said that it does not produce any special concept. On the other hand,
Cited Trademarks produce the sound, "organo", and as is the case of theTrademark, they produce no special concept.
When the major part of the Trademark and those of the Cited Trademarks arecompared, they cannot be compared in terms of concept, but Cited Trademarks
1 and 2 produce the same sound of "organo" as the Trademark, and in the caseof Cited Trademark 1, it can also be said that Cited Trademark 1 is similar to
the Trademark in appearance as well. As such, it is appropriate to acknowledge
that the Trademark and Cited Trademarks are similar.
C

Claims by the plaintiff

In response, the plaintiff claims as follows: (i) The part, "ORGANO", of theTrademark is merely a common English word meaning "organic" or "organ",and the defendant's trade name was given with the implication of "organic"; (ii)
The letter part, "SCIENCE", has the capability as an identifier of source interms of its relationship with the designated goods; (iii) The Trademark isshown by indicating the two constituent parts as a series and one block in
17

standard characters, written in the same size of letters and the same font and thelike, and due to reasons such as that the sound is pronounced in one breath andthat the Trademark in its entirety produces the meaning of "organic science", inwhich the words are inseparable as one unit, the JPO decision in whichsimilarity of trademarks was determined by extracting the letter part,"ORGANO", of the Trademark as the major part, is incorrect.
(A) However, with regard to the above (i), while it can be acknowledged thatthe letter part, "ORGANO", is an English prefix meaning "organ" or"organic", there is not enough evidence to support that this prefix is used asa word in itself. Even as a prefix, it cannot be acknowledged, as per thefinding above, that the meaning of the prefix has become widely known inJapan, and this fact remains unchanged even in light of factors such as that
dictionaries indicate terms such as " オ ル ガ ン ('organ' as in the
instrument)" and "オルガニズム (organism)", and that people use terms
such as "オルガノクレイ (organoclay)" and "オルガノギルド (organo
guild)".
In addition, while the plaintiff points out that the defendant's trade namewas given with the implication of "organic", this merely suggests how thetrade name came about, and it cannot be acknowledged immediately, basedon this mere fact, that "オルガノ (organo)", which is an abbreviation of
the defendant's trade name, is well-known in Japan as a word meaning"organic" in Japan.
(B) With regard to the above (ii), the fact that "サイエンス (science)" means"science" is well-known in Japan is as per the finding above, and evenwhen this fact is taken into consideration in connection with the chemicalcompounds and the like among the designated goods of the Trademark, itcannot be said that the word, "サイエンス (science)", has a strong
capability of distinguishing the Trademark from others.
(C) With regard to the above (iii), it can be acknowledged that the two parts
constituting the Trademark are the same in terms of the letter size, font, andthe like. However, given the fact that there is a space, the size of which isabout one letter, in-between the two parts, and the fact that the sound of theTrademark in its entirety is rather long, it cannot be said that the Trademark
18

is a series and one block and cannot be observed separately. Furthermore, inlight of the fact that the word, "ORGANO", is not sufficiently known inJapan, it cannot be acknowledged that the Trademark produces the conceptof "organic science", in which the letter parts are inseparable as a unit. As
per the finding described above, the letters, "ORGANO", and the letters,"SCIENCE", which constitute the Trademark are very different from eachother in terms of the capability of the respective letter parts for
identification, and thus it is reasonable to acknowledge that "ORGANO" isthe major part of the Trademark.
(D) Accordingly, the plaintiff's claims are groundless.
D

Summary

Accordingly, the JPO decision to the effect that the Trademark and Cited
Trademarks are acknowledged as being similar is appropriate.
(2) Similarity of designated goods, etc.
With regard to the similarity of designated goods, the designated goods of theTrademark and the designated goods of Cited Trademarks are the same in thatthey both include "chemical preparations", and thus it can be said that the thetwo trademarks are similar in terms of designated goods.
In response, the plaintiff claims that the "chemical preparations", which areamong the current designated goods of Cited Trademarks, are covered by"inorganic industrial chemicals, organic industrial chemicals", with respect towhich the defendant waived its right after registration of Cited Trademarks, andthat Cited Trademarks have no designated goods, or that Cited Trademarks
constitute so-called "insubstantial rights". However, since Cited Trademarks
have effectively completed the registration of rewriting so that the designatedgoods read as "surface-active chemical preparations; chemical preparations" inClass 1, the plaintiff's claims are groundless.
In addition, although the plaintiff claims that the letters, "ORGANO" or "オルガ ノ (organo)", of Cited Trademarks represent the quality and efficacy
themselves of designated goods and the like, and that the effect of eliminationof later-filed applications should therefore be restricted based on the reason thatthe effects of a trademark right as stipulated in Article 26 of the Trademark Act
do not extend to Cited Trademarks, it cannot be said that these letters represent
19the quality and efficacy of designated goods and the like, and therefore theplaintiff's claims are groundless.
(3) Conclusion
Accordingly, the JPO decision to the effect that registration of the Trademark is
in violation of Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xi) of the Trademark Act isappropriate.
3. Second Reason for Rescission (incorrect judgment concerning Second Reason forInvalidation)
It is appropriate to understand that a trademark which "is likely to cause confusion
in connection with the goods or services pertaining to a business of another person",as stipulated in Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xv) of the Trademark Act, includes
not only a trademark which, when used for its designated goods or the like, has arisk of creating the misunderstanding that said goods or the like pertain to thegoods or the like of another person (risk of creating confusion in a narrow sense),
but also a trademark which has a risk of creating the misunderstanding that said
goods or the like are the goods or the like pertaining to a business operator having aclose business relationship with said another person, such as by way of so-calledparent-subsidiary relationship and as affiliates, or belonging to a group ofcompanies selling products which bear the same mark (risk of creating confusion ina broad sense). Then, whether or not there is a "risk of creating confusion" should
be determined comprehensively, with the attention which is normally paid bytraders and consumers for designated goods and the like of the trademark
concerned, in light of factors such as the level of similarity between the trademark
concerned and the mark of another person, how well-known and famous the markof another person is, how the designated goods and the like of the trademark
concerned are related to the products and the like pertaining to another person's
business in terms of nature, use, or purpose, and commonality of traders andcustomers (refer to Supreme Court Judgment of Third Petty Bench dated July 11,
2000, Minshu Vol. 54, No. 6, page 1848).
When this is considered in the present case, the following is true.
(1) Level of similarity between the Trademark and Cited Trademarks
The fact that the Trademark and Cited Trademarks are similar is as per thefinding above, and it is therefore acknowledged that the Trademark and the
Defendant's Trademark are also similar.
20(2) Fame and prominence of Defendant's Trademark
The Defendant's Trademark had become well-known and famous even before
the filing date of the application for registration of the Trademark as
representing the defendant's business of water treatment equipment and thechemicals business which is closely related thereto, and the fact that the samecan be acknowledged even on the date of the decision for registration for the
Trademark is as per the above finding.
(3) Uniqueness of the defendant's trademark
As per the above finding, "ORGANO" is an English prefix meaning "organ" or"organic", but these meanings are not well-known in Japan, and also the word,"オルガノ (organo)", is not a well-known word in Japan. On that note, it
should be said that the Defendant's Trademark has a certain level of uniqueness.
(4) Relevance in terms of products or in terms of services and goodsA

As per the above finding, the designated goods and the like of theTrademark other than "chemical preparations" as of the filing date of theapplication for registration of the Trademark and at the time of the decision forregistration for the Trademark are as follows: "Aromatic organic compounds;
aliphatic organic compounds; organic halogenides; alcohols; phenols; ethers;
aldehydes and ketones; organic acids and salts thereof; esters; nitrogencompounds;

heterocyclic

compounds;

organophosphorus

compounds;

organometallic compounds; chemical preparations; unprocessed plastics;
organic semiconductor compounds; electroconductive organic compounds" inClass 1; and "Synthesis and processing of organic compounds, chemical
preparations, and unprocessed plastics" in Class 40.
On the other hand, it is as per the above finding that the defendant engages, as
its chemicals business, in the manufacture and sale of heavy-metal fixatives,cleansing agents, sterilization agents, air refresher, anti-foaming agents,
remover for non-ionic surfactants, high-polymer coagulants, impurity remover,rust preventives for water supply system, hydrogen peroxide decomposition
agents, sodium hypochlorite preparations, fuel additives, boiler water treatment
agents, corrosion inhibitors, cooling water treatment agents, and the like, whichcontain various organic compounds and inorganic compounds.
Of the above products which are manufactured and sold by the defendant,chemicals containing chemical compounds which are among designated goods21

of the Trademark include the following: (i) Boiler water treatment agent, inwhich the main component is tannin, which is an "aromatic organic compound"(Exhibits Ko 48, Ko 53, and Ko 54), and ion-exchange resin, which is acopolymer of styrene and divinylbenzene, which are "aromatic organic
compounds" (Exhibits Ko 78 and Ko 79); (ii) Anti-foaming agent, in which themain component is the fatty acid ester, which is a type of "aliphatic organic
compound" (Exhibit Ko 36); (iii) Slime-controlling agent, in which the main
component is the organic nitrogen halogen compound, which is a type of"organic halogen compound" (Exhibit Ko 62); (iv) Anti-foaming agent, inwhich the main component is the higher alcohol, which is a type of "alcohol"(Exhibit Ko 36); (v) Non-ionic surfactant remover, in which the main
component is phenolic resin, which is a type of "phenol" (Exhibit Ko 37); (vi)
Cleansing agent, in which the main component is the organic acid, as a type of"organic acid and salts thereof" (Exhibit Ko 74"); (vii) Anti-foaming agent, inwhich the main component is the fatty acid ester, which is a type of "ester"(Exhibit Ko 36); (viii) Steam condensate corrosion inhibitor, the main
component of which is the amine, a type of "nitrogen compound" (Exhibit Ko51); and (ix) Cooling water treatment agent, the main component of which isazole, a type of "heterocyclic compound" (Exhibits Ko 65 to Ko 68).
As described above, of the chemicals which are manufactured and sold by the
defendant, a considerable number of them contain organic compounds ascomponents, and thus it can be said they have the same or similar chemicals asa variety of organic compounds in Class 1 of the designated goods for the
Trademark, and since the manufacturing of chemicals by the defendant falls
under "synthesis and processing of organic compounds" in Class 40 fromamong the designated services for the Trademark, it should be said that thedesignated goods and services for the Trademark are closely related to thegoods and services of the defendant's business.
B

In response, the plaintiff claims as follows: (i) The designated goods for

the Trademark are entirely within the scope with respect to which the defendantwaived its rights; (ii) While the defendant's products are mixtures of industrial
chemicals and are used or discarded during the process of producing customers'
products, the plaintiff's products comprise single organic compounds, almost allof which are included in and constitute a part of the products for the plaintiff's
customers, and thus the designated goods for the Trademark are entirely22different from the products which the defendant produces, in terms of nature,use, and purpose.
(A) However, with regard to the above (i), what should be compared with theTrademark in the application of Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xv) of theTrademark Act is, in the first place, the representation in terms of "goods orservices pertaining to another person's business", and thus it should be said
that whether or not the designated goods for the Trademark are within thescope with respect to which the defendant waived its rights for the Cited
Trademarks should not have any influence on whether or not there is a
confusion of source pursuant to Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xv) of theTrademark Act.
(B) With regard to the above (ii), even if the plaintiff's products and thedefendant's products may be different in terms of the manner of use bycustomers or the unity of an organic compound, as long as it can be
acknowledged that the organic compounds contained in the chemicals
which the defendant manufactures and sells share the same organic
compounds which belong to the designated goods for the Trademark, itshould be said that the above finding, according to which the designatedgoods and services for the Trademark are closely related to the goods andservices which are manufactured and sold by the defendant, remains
unchanged.
(5) Commonality of traders and consumers, and current conditions of othertransactionsA

As described above, the defendant's main business involves the businessof water treatment engineering and the functional commodity business, which
includes the chemicals business. Specifically, the defendant's operation
concerns water treatment facilities for industrial use, facilities related to waterand sewerage, environmental facilities, facilities related to undergroundwater/soil cleanup, facilities related to industrial processes, facilities related tostandard type water treatment machinery, chemicals related to water treatment,
food additives, and service-based businesses. As such, it is acknowledged thatthe defendant's traders and consumers are the electronics industry such as
semiconductors and liquid crystal displays, in addition to water treatment plants
23

for manufacture of artificial ditches and treatment of waste water and the like,as well as various manufacturers, service providers, power plants, national
government organs, municipal governments, and the general consumer public,
among others.
On the other hand, possible traders and consumers of designated goods andservices for the Trademark are various manufacturers requiring the chemicalcompounds, which are among the designated goods, as raw materials and thelike for their products, but it is believed that the manufacturers which requirechemical compounds as raw materials and the like include a considerable
number of persons requiring water treatment facilities, water treatment
equipment, or water treatment chemicals.
Accordingly, it should be said that, in many ways, the traders and consumers ofthe defendant's products and the like are the same as the traders and consumersof the designated goods and the like for the Trademark.
B

In response, the plaintiff claims that, in the fields related to water

treatment, focus should be placed on the current conditions of transactions
rather than on the commonality of traders and consumers, and that since tradersand consumers of the plaintiff's products and the like enter into a business
relationship by specifying the plaintiff after studying the plaintiff's production
capacity, safety, and the like beforehand, there is no risk of creating confusion
in connection with the defendant.
However, it should be said that, even if consumers and traders enter into abusiness relationship in a manner claimed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff will notnecessarily acknowledge the defendant as a different company, and thus if theTrademark is used for designated goods and services, there is a risk of creating
the misunderstanding that the goods and services using the Trademark pertain
to the defendant's group companies.
(6) Diversified operation of the defendant
As described above, it is acknowledged that, as of March 2011, the defendanthas 21 subsidiaries and 2 affiliates, operates globally, and engages in various
businesses, based on which it can be acknowledged that the defendant engages
in a diversified operation.

24

(7) Conclusion
As described above, not only are the Trademark and the Defendant's Trademark
similar, but also the Defendant's Trademark is well-known and famous, and hasa certain level of uniqueness. Furthermore, the designated goods and services
for the Trademark are closely related to the goods and services pertaining to thedefendant's business, and thus the traders and consumers of the designatedgoods and services for the Trademark are the same as the traders andconsumers of the goods and services pertaining to the defendant's business.
Furthermore, in light of the defendant's diversified operation, if the sameattention which is normally paid by traders and consumers with regard to thedesignated goods and services for the Trademark is used as the basis, it can besaid that use of the Trademark on designated goods and services other than the"chemical preparations" has a risk of creating the misunderstanding that theTrademark pertains to the defendant's goods and services, thereby creating
confusion.
Accordingly, the JPO decision to the effect that registration of the Trademark is inviolation of Article 4, paragraph(1), item(xv) of the Trademark Act is appropriate.
No. 6

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed as there is no reason, and the
Judgment renders as in the form of the main text.

Intellectual Property High Court, Second Division
Presiding judge

MORI Yoshiyuki

Judge

SATO Tatsubumi

Judge

MORIOKA Ayako

25