15 Industrial Property Rights and Treaty Revisions inModern Japan - Diplomacy and Domestic Affairs - (*)
Research Fellow: Satoshi TSURUOKA
In 1899, Japan acceded to the Paris Conventions and the Berne Conventions. Details of the process that led
up to this have begun to emerge in recent years, primarily focusing on the diplomatic aspects.
However, little information has emerged so far about domestic affairs, in terms of what kind of domestic
problems Japan and Western countries faced in relation to industrial property rights in this process.
Accordingly, this study examines industrial property rights in modern Japan in terms of diplomacy anddomestic affairs to clarify what kind of problems concerning industrial property rights emerged between Japanand Western countries – above all, the UK and Germany, which played a leading role in the treaty revisionnegotiations – in the process leading up to Japan’s accession to these conventions in 1899.

I

Introduction

In 1899, Japan acceded to the Paris
Conventions and the Berne Conventions. Detailsof the process that led up to this have begun toemerge in recent years, primarily focusing on the
diplomatic aspects.
However, such studies have revealed little
about the domestic affairs behind the diplomaticnegotiations, in terms of what kind of domestic
problems Japan and Western countries faced inrelation to industrial property rights.
Rather than being confined to negotiations
concerning industrial property rights, diplomaticnegotiations are mostly conducted on the basis of
the domestic situation (domestic affairs) in eachcountry, so in order to further analyze andexamine diplomatic negotiations, it is importantto gain an insight into the domestic situations(domestic affairs) in those countries.
At the same time, quite a few studies ofindustrial property rights in modern Japan carriedout hitherto have referred to the process ofenacting such legislation as the Trade Marks
Regulations and the Patent Regulations.
However, none of these studies have given
much consideration to political factors in modern
Japan, so it is difficult to discern the relationshipbetween industrial property rights and politicalfactors in modern Japan.
Accordingly, taking into account theoutcomes of these studies, this study examines
industrial property rights in modern Japan fromthe perspective of political science, in terms of

diplomacy and domestic affairs to clarify whatkind of problems concerning industrial property
rights emerged between Japan and Westerncountries – above all, the UK and Germany,
which played a leading role in the treaty revisionnegotiations – in the process leading up to Japan’s
accession to these conventions in 1899.

Ⅱ The Formation ofGovernment
andProperty Rights
1

the Meiji
Industrial

Vacillating between the Reward Theory
and the Patent Theory(1) Deliberations in Kogi-sho
In December 1867, the monarchy was
restored and the new Meiji government wasformed. Under the Meiji government, industrial
property rights were discussed in Kogi-sho (thelegislature at that time) as early as March 1869and since the government’s formation there had
been high hopes that industrial property rights
might help to promote new domestic industries,
so it began to explore the enactment of industrial
property rights legislation.
(2) Establishment of Minbu-sho
The offices of the Meiji government werereorganized in July 1869, resulting in theestablishment of Minbu-sho(the Ministry of
Popular Affairs) and Okura-sho(the Ministry of
Finance). Minbu-sho and the Ministry of Financewere merged about a month later and, as a result,(*) This is an English translation of the summary of the report published under the Industrial Property Research

Promotion Project FY2013 entrusted by the Japan Patent Office. IIP is entirely responsible for any errors in
expression or description of the translation. When any ambiguity is found in the English translation, the original
Japanese text shall be prevailing.

IIP Bulletin 2014 Vol.23● 116 ●

the expanded mega-ministry began to promotevarious policies aimed at modernization, including
industrial property rights.
In the first half of 1870, the establishment oforganization which was named Hougen-kyoku
as part of the expanded mega-ministry was
proposed. This proposal was not adopted, but the
granting of rewards and patent rights to inventors,
and of exclusive rights to the authors andtranslators of books were prescribed, with thereward theory (which involves granting a reward
to a person who has created a useful invention)and the patent theory (which involves granting
exclusive patent rights to a person who hascreatedausefulinvention)
operatingconcomitantly.
In June that year, proposals for the codes,
rules and regulations concerning rewards forinventions were submitted by the expanded
merged ministry. None of these proposals wereadopted either, but the reward theory and thepatent theory continued to operate in tandem; in
addition, it was stipulated that exclusive
permission would be granted to the person who
was first to import and work a foreign technology,
and the copying of inventions was prohibited. As
well as protecting inventors, the ulterior motiveof the Meiji government in doing this was toensure that technologies from Western countries
were introduced as soon as possible.
The Meiji government did not adopt any ofthese proposals, but proposals for industrial
property rights legislation were repeatedly madeand there were high hopes for industrial property
rights as one of the policies aimed at revitalizing
domestic industry. The figures behind these
proposals included such former retainers of the
shogunate as Shibusawa Eiichi, who was also
knowledgeable about industrial property rights.
(3) The establishment of Kobu-syo and theformulation of the Summary Rules ofMonopoly by Minbu-sho
While the expanded merged ministry was
split once more into two separate ministries in
July 1870, Kobu-syo(the Ministry of Engineering)
was established as a new ministry in October thatyear, to take charge of administrative mattersconcerning the promotion of engineering.
However, Kobu-syo was launched without anadequate organizational system having been put
in place, so after it was first established,
Minbu-shocontinued
tohandletheadministration of industry promotion on its behalf,
and the Industrial Property Rights Bill was

submitted by Minbu-sho in March 1871.
Under this bill, there was a shift in policy,
moving away from the reward theory and thepatent theory operating in tandem; the reward
theory was expurgated and the patent theory
becameclear-cut.
Moreover,stringent
restrictions on copying were abolished and the
copying of outstanding technologies from Westerncountries and within Japan was encouraged,reflecting the intention of Minbu-sho to develop
domestic industry without delay.
On April 7 that year, the bill was
promulgated as Senbai-ryaku-kisoku(the Rules ofPatent), following some revisions of the wording.
(4) The transition to the reward theory andthe abolition of Senbai-ryaku-kisoku
Although the Summary Rules of Monopoly
were promulgated in April 1871, moves to revise
them were already beginning to emerge within
Minbu-sho around that time. In July 1871,
Minbu-sho switched its policy away from thepatenttheoryandbegan
considering
implementing policies based on the reward theory
once again.
However, a reorganization of government
offices was carried out in July 1871, resulting in
Minbu-sho being subsumed into the Ministry of
Financeand abolished altogether. In October thatyear, Kobu-syo took over responsibility for theSummary Rules of Monopoly, which had
previously been under the jurisdiction of
Minbu-sho.
At the same time, once Kobu-syo inherited
Senbai-ryaku-kisoku from Minbu-shot, the samekind of moves began to be seen there as well. In
January 1872, Kobu-syo decided to abolish
Senbai-ryaku-kisoku that it had inherited from
Minbu-sho and establish new rules about suchmatters as the patenting of inventions, as well as
implementing policies based on the reward
theory.
As a result, in March 1872, Kobu-syo t
abolished Senbai-ryaku-kisoku on the grounds
that it was still too early to enforce them, as they
had many adverse effects, while yielding little in
the way of benefit, but this was already theestablished policy of Kobu-syo.
However,theabolitionofSenbai-ryaku-kisoku was an interim measure on
the part of Kobu-syo, and as well as implementing
policies based on the reward theory, it indicatedthat it intended to enact a new law based on thisin the future, so at that point it was still willing toenact industrial property rights legislation.

● 2 ●
●
－117－
117 ●

IIPIIP
Bulletin
Bulletin2014
2014Vol.23
Vol.23

2

Conflict within the Meiji Government
Concerning Industrial Property Rights(1) Kobu-syo after the abolition of
Senbai-ryaku-kisoku
After the abolition of Senbai-ryaku-kisoku,
Kobu-syo appears to have implemented policies
based on the reward theory, but it demonstrated anegative attitude toward the enactment of a newlaw on industrial property rights, just as it had at
the time that it abolished Senbai-ryaku-kisoku,
taking the stance that such a law would havenumerous adverse effects, while yielding few
benefits, so it was too early to bring it into force.
Moreover, in January 1873, the Ministry of
Finance inquired about industrial property rights,
and Kobu-syo was not actively opposed to the
Ministry of Financehandling them.
Furthermore, Naimu-syo(the Ministry ofInterior)was established in November 1873 and adepartment with jurisdiction over industrial
property rights was established within theministry the following March; Kobu-syo’s
department handling industrial property rights
had been abolished the previous November, whilereferences to industrial property rights weredeleted from Kobu-syo’s regulations concerning
the disposition of business in November 1875.
Thus, the latter ministry demonstrated areadiness to make concessions to other ministries
as well.
(2) Establishment of the Ministry of Interior
In October 1873, the Meiji government
conducted another reshuffle of personnel,
appointing Ito Hirobumi to the Minister of
Kobu-syo, Okuma Shigenobu to the Minister ofFinance, and Terashima Munenori to the Ministerof Foreign Affairs. A month later, in November,the Ministry of Interior was established andOkubo Toshimichi was appointed to the Ministerof Interior .
In March 1874, a new department withjurisdiction over industrial property rights wasestablished in the Ministry of Interior and it
implemented policies based on both the reward
theory and the patent theory.
However, this meant that industrial property
rights were being handled not only by Kobu-syo
and the Ministry of Finance, but also by the
Ministry of Interior , with some overlaps in theirrespective jurisdictions.

IIP
Bulletin2014
2014
Vol.23
IIP Bulletin
Vol.23(3) Closer relations between the Ministry of
Finance and the Ministry of Interior
At the same time, having become aware of
the isolation of Kobu-syo in relation to industrial
property rights, the Ministry of Finance initiallysought to act in concert with it, but after Okuma
Shigenobu was appointed Minister of Finance in
October 1873 and the Ministry of Interior was
established the following month, new moves
began to be seen.
In May 1874, having already become awareof the isolation of Kobu-syo, the Ministry of
Finance was formulating a bill on industrial
property rights, but after coordinating with the
Ministry of Interior , it actually submitted adifferent bill on industrial property rights insteadof the one it had originally been working on. As aresult, the Ministry of Finance moved to exclude
Kobu-syo, while showing signs of a closer
relationship with the Ministry of Interior .
(4) Growing dissatisfaction with Kobu-syo
Kobu-syo objected to the bill submitted by
the Ministry of Finance on the grounds thatdomestic industry was still underdeveloped andthe bill would yield little benefit, while having
many adverse effects. In light of this, in July 1874,
the Meiji government decided to postpone the bill
for the time being and acknowledged that
Kobu-syo had jurisdiction over industrial property
rights.
However, at the same time, dissatisfaction
was beginning to be expressed within the Meiji
government over Kobu-syo’s continuing failure to
try to enact industrial property rights legislation.
Initially, many in the Meiji government wereof the same opinion as Kobu-syo concerning theenactment of industrial property rights legislation,
regarding the technological level within Japan as
being still too low and believing that enacting
such a law under such circumstances would have
many adverse effects. However, from aroundmid-1874, those accepting the necessity ofenacting industrial property rights legislation
became progressively more visible and in Augustthat year, this faction went as far as clearly
indicating that industrial property rights
legislation should be enacted as soon as possible,
with increasing dissatisfaction with Kobu-syo
being expressed.
(5) The Ministry of Finance and the Ministryof Interior go on the offensive
Amid this situation, aiming to regain lost
ground, the Ministry of Finance asserted in

● 3 ●
●
－118－
118 ●

January 1875 that industrial property rights
should be placed under its own jurisdiction.
However, the Meiji government ultimately
dismissed this proposal; in September 1875, theMinistry of Interior deleted references to patentrights from its regulations concerning thedisposition of business, while in January 1876, it
deleted references to rewards, thereby granting
concessions in relation to jurisdiction over patentrights.
Moreover, after Minister of Interior Okubo
had inquired about jurisdiction over industrial
property rights in December 1875, the Meiji
government eventually acknowledged Kobu-syo’s
jurisdiction over patent rights in May 1876.
However, on the other hand, trademarks
were added to the matters under the jurisdictionof the Ministry of Interior in September 1875
and, as a result, it started working on a billconcerning trademarks, compiling the draft in
1876.
At the same time, the Ministry of Financecontinued to demonstrate a positive attitude
toward the enactment of industrial property
rights legislation. This was in response torequests from the industrial sector. Moreover, in
December 1878, jurisdiction over administrative
matters concerning trademarks was transferredto the Ministry of Finance from the Ministry ofInterior , so it began working on a bill on
trademarks, which it completed in December
1880.
Thus, whereas Kobu-syo continued to stallon enacting industrial property rights legislation,
the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of
Financedemonstrated a more proactive stance andmounted an offensive. Subsequently, the Ministryof Interior
made gradual concessions to
Kobu-syo, but the Ministry of Finance maintained
its proactive stance and the feud over jurisdiction
carried on until the establishment ofNou-syoumu-syo(the Ministry of Agriculture andCommerce) in 1881.

no time in getting to work on treaty revisionnegotiations, starting in June 1876 withnegotiations between Japan and the U.S.A. As aresult, an agreement between Japan and the
U.S.A. was signed in July 1878, which didn’t
contain provisions concerning industrial property
rights.

Ⅲ The treaty Revision negotiations
and Industrial Property Rights(2) Establishment of the Ministry ofAgriculture
andCommerce
andenactment of laws on industrial
property rights
The Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce
was established in April 1881 and industrial
property rights were placed under its jurisdiction.
In response to this, the Ministry of Agriculture
and Commerce set to work on enacting laws on
industrial property rights, with Takahashi
Korekiyo playing a central role in this. The Trade1

The treaty Revision negotiations byUndertaken
byForeign
Minister
Terashima and Industrial Property Rights(1) Conclusion of an agreement between
Japan and the U.S.A.
Terashima Munenori was appointed Ministerof Foreign Affairs in October 1873. Terashima lost

(2) Establishment of the Bureau for Treaty
Revision
In April 1874, with a view to conducting
treatyrevisionnegotiations,
Terashima
established the Bureau for Treaty Revision andbegan to consider the legislative process fortreaty revision. In response, the Ministry ofInterior also began to consider the legislative
process required in order to revise treaties and,in December that year, pointed out the necessityof enacting industrial property rights legislation
without delay, so deliberations concerning theenactment of such a law began, due in part to theneed for treaty revision negotiations.
2

The treaty Revision negotiations byUndertaken by Foreign Minister Inoueand Industrial Property Rights(1) Inclusion in treaty revision negotiations
Inoue Kaoru was appointed Minister of
Foreign Affairs in September 1879. Inoueembarked upon treaty revision negotiations andheld preliminary talks on such revisions inJanuary 1882. At these preliminary talks, theparticipating countries submitted a proposal toinclude provisions concerning the protection ofindustrial property rights.
After the preliminary talks ended, Japan andWestern countries negotiated the format of thenegotiations concerning industrial property rights
and in April 1885, the Japanese government
consented to conduct negotiations on industrial
property rights as part of the treaty revisionnegotiations.

● 4 ●
●
－119－
119 ●

IIPIIP
Bulletin
Bulletin2014
2014Vol.23
Vol.23

Marks Regulations was enacted in June 1884,
while the Patent Regulations was enacted in April
1885.
(3) Cases of infringement and the response
by Japan and the UK
In September 1883, a complaint was received
from the UK that Japanese had infringed British
trademarks. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign
Affairs investigated the matter and despite thefact that the country had already made thetransition to the principle of nulla poena sine lege(no penalty without a law) with the enactment of
the Criminal Code in 1882 and there were no
express provisions concerning infringements offoreign trademarks, it was decided to crack downon the infringement via supralegal means, due toa desire to maintain good Anglo-Japaneserelations during the treaty revision negotiations.
Moreover, in July 1884, after the enactmentof the Trade Marks Regulations, a new complaint
was received from the UK that Japanese had
infringed British trademarks. Although the Trade
Marks Regulations was not yet being applied toforeigners , the Japanese government decided todeal with this infringement via supralegal means
as well, attaching importance to the country’s
relationship with the UK during the treaty
revision negotiations.
In response, the UK conveyed its gratitude
to the Japanese government and British
dissatisfaction with Japan over the protection ofindustrial property rights diminished.
(4) Cases of infringement and the response
by Japan and Germany
On the other hand, although Germany
expressed high praise for the Japanese
government’s stance on cases of infringement,
when infringements of German trademarks byJapanese became frequent occurrences, another
respons on the part of Germany began to be seen.
In response to an infringement of a German
trademark by
Japanese , the Japanese
government decided in February 1886 to takeaction, as it had in response to the British cases,
regardless of the existence or otherwise of
express provisions.
However, in Germany, the opinion was
expressed that provisions concerning theprotection of industrial property rights should be
included in treaty revision negotiations. The
German Foreign Ministry had indicated that its
policy was that negotiations concerning industrial
property rights should take place separately, after

IIP
Bulletin2014
2014
Vol.23
IIP Bulletin
Vol.23treaties had been revised, but although calls toincorporate the issue into treaty revisionnegotiations were not that widespread, theinfringements involving Japan and Germany
resulted in growing moves by Germany toward achange of policy in its treaty revisionnegotiations.
(5) The treaty revision conference and theresignation of Foreign Minister Inoue
The treaty revision conference was held in
May 1886. A draft that prescribed protection forindustrial property rights was to be formulated at
this conference, but opposition on the part of both
Japan and Germany meant that nothing was
stipulated concerning Japan’s accession to theParis and Berne Conventions.
3

The treaty Revision negotiations byUndertaken by Foreign Minister Okuma
and Industrial Property Rights(1) The conclusion of the Japan-U.S. andJapan-Germany Treaties of Peace,
Amity, Commerce and Navigation
Okuma Shigenobu was appointed Minister of
Foreign Affairs on February 1, 1888. Having
altered the existing policy on negotiations,Okuma
embarkedupontreatyrevisionnegotiations, starting with negotiations with the
U.S.A. and Germany, which had demonstrated afriendly attitude for some time.
As a result, the Japan-U.S. Treaty of Peace,
Amity, Commerce and Navigation was concluded
in February 1889, while the Japan-Germany
Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation
was concluded in June that year.
Moreover, a broad consensus was reached
between Japan and the UK in around October
1889 and their treaty revision negotiations began
to proceed smoothly, but just as with the Inoue
proposal, the Okuma proposal was the focus of abacklash within Japan, as it did not achieve theabolition of extraterritoriality, so treaty revisionnegotiations were broken off once more.
(2) Cases of infringement and the response
by Japan, the UK, and Germany
At the end of December 1887, a complaint
was received from the UK that Japanese had
infringed British trademarks.
Okuma rejected the British request on the
grounds that it was not possible to take action via
supralegal means in the way that the Japanese
government had done hitherto. As a result, the

● 5 ●
●
－120－
120 ●

UK’s sense of caution regarding Okuma’s attitude
increased.
Subsequently, in December 1888, acomplaint was received from Germany thatJapanese had infringed German trademarks.
In January 1889, while Okuma replied thatthe issue could not be dealt with on the basis of
executive power, just as he had told the UK, heappeared better-disposed to Germany, stating that
he wished the local government to deal with thematter.
Although Germany continued to be satisfied
with the Japanese government’s response, areport was compiled in Germany in September
1889, concerning the infringement of trademarks
by Japanese. This report stated that there wascurrently a massive influx of Japanese products
into Chinaand there were many infringements
arising from this. As well as noting the growing
sense of caution about Japanese industrials, thereport pointed out the risk of a large number of
infringements that could affect Germany’s key
industries in future. In addition, this report statedthat it was not possible to address the situation
under the existing treaty between Japan andGermany,due
tochanges
relating
toextraterritoriality and trade between the twocountries, and argued that a new Japan-Germany
treaty should be concluded without delay.
Thus, although there was satisfaction inGermany concerning the Japanese government’s
handling of the infringements that had occurred
to date, there was a growing awareness ofproblems relating to industrial property rights,
giving rise to a heightening sense of crisis.
(3) The development and limits of the legal
system around industrial property
rightsIn July 1888, Inoue Kaoru was appointed to
the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce. As
well as the enactment and revision of laws on
industrial property rights and the development ofa legal system surrounding such rights, theorganization of the Patents Bureau was enhanced
under Inoue, through such initiatives as increases
in the number of staff and the construction ofpremises for the bureau.
However, at the same time, dissatisfaction
over such moves by the Patents Bureau grew andthe number of staff was subsequently cut,
resulting in the bureau being forced to move out
from its newly-built premises due to the
reduction in its scale.
Furthermore, Takahashi Korekiyo, who had

played a key role up to that point, resigned as
chief of the Patents Bureau in October 1889 andhis successors were exposed to difficulties arisingfrom understaffing.
4

The Beginning of Mixed Residence in
the Interior and Industrial Property
Rights(1) Concessions by Germany
The second Yamagata Cabinet was
inaugurated in November 1898. Aoki Shuzo was
appointed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs andhe began to work on a solution to problems
relating to industrial property rights, which had
been an outstanding issue between Japan andGermany since the conclusion of theJapan-Germany Treaty of Commerce andNavigation in 1896.
In July 1897, the German Ministry of Interior(Reichsministerium des Innern) formulated adraft of a special treaty on industrial property
rights between Japan and Germany, which had
been prescribed in the Japan-Germany Treaty ofCommerce and Navigation, but the German
Patent Office (Reichspatentamt) objected to thisdraft on the grounds that it actually exposed
German trademarks to danger.
Accordingly, in May 1899, the German
Ministry of Interior asked the German Ministry ofForeign Affairs to rescind the draft and inform
Japan that as Germany was expected to accede to
the Paris Convention in the near future, there
was no need for a special treaty. Thus, Germany
made a concession on the issue of a special treaty
and no proposal was made concerning
discussions.
(2) Cases of infringement and the response
by Japan, Germany, and the UK
In July 1897, a formal request was submitted
to the German Ministry of Interior, seeking
political intervention to protect German
trademarks. In response to this, the German
Ministry of Interior proposed to the German
Ministry of Foreign Affairs in September 1898
that it should enter into negotiations with theJapanese government concerning each incident,
so it was decided that negotiations with theJapanese government would take place, withassistance from the UK as well.
As a result, negotiations between Japan,
Germany and the UK took place in December thatyear, but Germany and the UK were compelled tomake unilateral concessions in the face of the

● 6 ●
●
－121－
121 ●

IIPIIP
Bulletin
Bulletin2014
2014Vol.23
Vol.23

hardline stance adopted by the Japanese
government, and proceedings were suffused witha sense of defeat.

and developed countries.

Ⅳ Conclusion
In the process leading up to Japan’s
accession to the Paris Conventions and the Berne
Conventions in 1899, the following problems
emerged in modern Japan with
Westerncountries in relation to industrial property rights:(1) conflict within the Japanese government
concerning the enactment of industrial property
rights legislation; (2) the failure to resolve thisconflict immediately, resulting in its dragging on
until the establishment of the Ministry ofAgriculture and Commerce in 1881; (3) a lack ofsmooth progress in putting in place a legal system
concerning industrial property rights; (4) a large
number of counterfeit goods and numerous
infringements resulting from the delay inenacting industrial property rights legislation; (5)the emergence of problems in granting rights toforeign nationals after the enactment of laws on
industrial property rights; (6) demands for Japanto accede to the Paris Conventions and the Berne
Conventions; and (7) the emergence of problems
relating to industrial property rights after mixed
residence in the interior began.
As a result of the Japanese government’s
positioning of industrial property rights as a low
priority, these issues encouraged numerous
infringements and ultimately brought about asituation in which each infringement developed
into a diplomatic issue, rendering the government
unable to deal with them adequately.
Moreover,althoughtheJapanesegovernment initially did its utmost to respond to
the requests of Western countries concerning
infringements of industrial property rights, it
subsequently went as far as using them as ameans of diplomacy, with the result that it
succeeded in eliciting concessions from the UK
and Germany.
Such examples from modern Japan would
seem to demonstrate how difficult it is to achieve
compatibility between modernization and theprotection of industrial property rights, so there
is a risk that similar problems will occur inemerging nations in future. Accordingly, thissuggests that in order to be prepared for suchproblems, it is necessary to consider adequate
response measures, while also examining
approaches to the protection of industrial
property rights that will benefit both developing

IIP
Bulletin2014
2014
Vol.23
IIP Bulletin
Vol.23

● 7 ●
●
－122－
122 ●