6 Design System Corresponding to Design Protectionin the Digital Society (*)
The functions of individual products have become uniform in specific fields in recent years, and it has
become more difficult to differentiate products based only on the technologies of the products. Consequently, it has
become increasingly important to differentiate products based on sophisticated designs and user-friendly GUIs.
In addition, it has been pointed out that applicants suffer a procedural and cost burden for obtaining rights
as it is necessary to file applications and obtain rights for individual articles in order to enjoy protection under thecurrent Design Act. In particular, for electronic devices, there is an increasing number of cases where a common
GUI has been adopted for electronic devices of different kinds in order to enhance user convenience. Therefore, itis necessary to consider the propriety of introducing a protection mechanism whereby the right obtained by filingone application extends to multiple articles.
Given this factor, we conducted this study with the aim of studying and analyzing changes in the actual
conditions of development of designs, mainly screen designs, and the need for design protection in light of theperspective of international harmonization and international competitiveness, to prepare the basic materials to be
used in considering the design system to protect and promote design creation activities in the digital society.

I

Introduction

1

Purpose and background of this study

Regarding protection of screen designs ofelectronic devices, etc. which have been
undergone remarkable development in recent
years, the Design Act was partially revised inJapan in 2006, and thereby, "graphic images on ascreen that are provided for use in the operation
carried out in order to enable an article toperform its functions" was made subject toprotection as a part of an article, in addition to"figures, etc. that are indispensable in light of theestablishment of an article" which had previously
been subject to protection.
Under the current design system, a screen
design displayed on a computer (general-purpose
machine) falls under the condition of having thecomputer fulfill its information processing
function, which is its original function; therefore,
it is understood as not being subject to protection.
In addition, as a screen design is protected as apart of an article, it is necessary to file anapplication and obtain rights with respect to eacharticle for which the screen design is used.
Moreover, screen designs after addition orchanges to a screen design of an electronic device
through version-up, updating, or addition of an
application after the selling of the electronic
device are not subject to protection.
However, forms of use of a screen design

which were not assumed at the time of therevision of the Act in 2006 have been emerging
along with the subsequent development of
information processing technology, etc. Examples
of such forms include expansion of a service to
add or change a screen design after the sale of a
product, expansion of use of screen designs
separately from articles, and the change toincreasingly multifunction or general-purpose
electronic devices. Therefore, the current design
system may be becoming unfit for the actual
conditions. On the other hand, looking at othercountries, the subject-matter of protection isscheduled to be expanded to cover the screen
designs themselves in South Korea while screen
designs themselves have already been subject toprotection in the European Community. The gap
with other countries in terms of the subject
matter of protection has been widening.
In order to respond to such recent changes inthe status of use of screen designs in electronic
devices and eliminate the differences with othercountries in terms of the subject-matter ofprotection, it is necessary to consider the
expansion of protection of screen designs and theintegrity of an article and a design as arequirement for protection under the Design Act
which is the premise of the expansion.
2 Problems considered in this study
In this study, we considered the design
system corresponding to the actual conditions of(*) This is an English translation of the summary of the FY2011 JPO-commissioned research study report on the issues
related to the industrial property rights system.

●

IIP Bulletin 2012 Vol.21

1 ●development and use of screen designs with afocus on (1) to (3) below in light of theaforementioned background and opinions ofindustrial circles, etc.
(1) Requirement of integrity with an article(2) Function/operation requirements(3) Other requirements (effect of a design right,
description requirements of drawings, anddata format)
3

Method of conducting this study

In this study, we conducted the following: (1)meetings of a study committee consisting of
persons of learning and experience who haveexpertise, intellectuals in industrial circles, etc.
(four meetings in total), (2) questionnaires andinterview surveys intended to understand user's
requests and improvements in cases where thescope of protection is expanded as well as theactual conditions of design activities of Japanesecompanies, etc., and direct or potential needs, etc.
for revisions of the design system, including
revision of the scope of protection, (3) overseasinterview surveys (in the United States, Europe,and South Korea) in order to understand theactual conditions of development of screen
designs and the actual conditions of utilization of
intellectual property rights (design law, copyrightlaw, etc.) for screen designs in other countries,and (4) studies of documents and court
precedents in Japan and other countries.

Ⅱ Current Situation of Protectionof Screen Designs
1

it is expected to become possible for the screen
designs and icons themselves to enjoy protection.
In Europe, screen designs themselves are subject
to protection as products, and there is norequirement of integrity with an article.
As a result of the interview survey, no
unified view was obtained with regard to whether
it is possible to exercise rights, including
injunction, against the act of assigning, etc. a
program in any country/region as opinions on thatpoint differed depending on users.

Current situation of protection of screen
designs in other countries(1) Integrity with an article
In the United States, a screen design which
is separated from an article is not subject toprotection; however, a screen design can be
subject to protection if it is in the state of being
displayed on an article. The definition of "design"in the current Industrial Design Protection Act ofSouth Korea is very similar to that in theJapanese Design Act, 1 and screen designs areprotected as parts of articles in the state of being
displayed on articles such as display devices. The
Industrial Design Protection Act is now underrevision. After the revision, the subject-matter ofprotection is scheduled to be expanded to include
articles stipulated in the Locarno Agreement, and●(2) Function/operation requirements
The function/operation requirements that are
imposed on screen designs in Japan are notimposed in the United States, Europe, and South
Korea. Therefore, screen designs, wallpapers, etc.
which are displayed on computers have beenregistered in those countries and region.
(3) Scope of effect
In the United States, names of articles, suchas "icon on a computer display screen," arepermitted in practice, and such rights are
expected to extend to various articles which candisplay screen designs and intangible items suchas software, etc., and may have a broad scope inthe same manner as in the case where screen
designs themselves are made subject toprotection. Screen designs themselves are/will be
subject to protection in Europe/South Korea after
the legal revision; therefore, relevant rights are
expected to extend to all the articles whichdisplay screen designs.
(4) Number of designs and articles which
can be included in one application
In the United States, it is possible to enjoy
protection for multiple embodiments that are
based on a single design concept, and it is also
permitted to describe the names of multiple
articles in the "Title" and "Claim" columns.
Therefore, there are registrations in which a"drawing indicating only a screen design" and a"drawing indicating the state where the screen
design is displayed on a device" are included in
one application and those in which a "drawing
indicating only an icon," a "drawing indicating thestate where the icon is displayed on a device," anda "drawing indicating the state where the pictureof the icon is printed on the surface of the device
body" are included in one application.
In Europe, it is possible to include multiple
designs that fall under the same class of theInternational Classification for Industrial Designs

2 ●IIP Bulletin 2012 Vol.21

in one application. In South Korea, it is possible
to include up to 20 desings that fall under thesame class in one design application for screen
designs. Furthermore, under the revised Act, it
will become possible to include up to 100 designsof articles that fall under the same class of theInternational Classification for Industrial Designs
in one application.
(5) Results of the overseas interview
surveyIn all countries and region subject to thesurvey, search regarding other persons' rights is
not considered so difficult that it would
affectdevelopment. In addition, opinion was
divided concerning whether production andassignment of a computer program constituteinfringement of a relevant design right in thesecountries.
2

User needs for protection of screen
designs

About 33% of the companies answered that"screen designs are highly important" while about
34% of the companies answered that "screen
designs are important to the same degree as
otherelements(function,
brand,
price,
advertising, etc.)." Adding those that answeredthat "screen designs are likely to become
important in the future," screen designs are likely
to become important for around 80% of all the
respondents in the future. Only about 3% of thecompanies answered that "screen designs are oflittle importance and are also unlikely to become
important in the future."With regard to screen designs that should beprotected under the Design Act, according to theresults of the questionnaire survey, most
respondents chose "screens of specializedmachines,"
followedby"screensofgeneral-purpose machines" and "icons" in theorder given. The fewest respondents chose "gamescreens" and "decorative screens."
With regard to the forms of display thatshould be protected through expansion ofprotection under the Design Act in addition toimages that are recorded in articles in advance, alittle under 70% of the hardware companies
answered that "screen designs that areadded/changed after the purchase of the products"
should be protected (or their protection ispermissible) while a little under 40% of thecompanies specializing in software answered in●

IIP Bulletin 2012 Vol.21

that manner. In addition, around 50% of the
hardware companies answered that "screen
designs displayed by programs or data that areoutside the products" should be protected (ortheir protection is permissible) while only over
30% of companies specialized in software gave
this answer.
As for the design application system forscreen designs, few respondents gave an answer
supporting a system under which rights extend to
all articles. In addition, it appeared that many
respondents desire the reduction of proceduraland cost burdens while maintaining the idea of thescope of rights under the current system.
Through the overall questionnaire andinterview surveys, many respondents expressed
opinions showing concerns about increases in theburden of searches regarding other persons'rights and omissions of searches which arecaused by additions to the subjects of protection
under the Design Act and expansion of the scopeof protection under said Act.

Ⅲ Current Situation of Screen
Designs and Their Development
1

Examples of screen designs in productsin the market/services

As examples of screen designs in products inthe market/services, there are cases in which a
common screen design is used in multiple devices.
It is expected that cases in which a common
screen design is used in different kinds ofproducts will increase with an increase in thenumber of products using a general-purpose
operating system.
Moreover, products for which it is possible to
make changes/additions to the menu screen andto add functions after their purchase, including
smartphones and tablet-type devices, havebecome widely used in addition to computers, andthey are expected to increase in the future. For
devices in which services are provided throughnetworks, it is becoming difficult to determine
whether a displayed screen design is an image
that has been recorded in the product in advanceor an image that has been obtained throughnetworks.
Furthermore, it is becoming difficult todistinguishbetweenmultifunction
communications
devicesandspecializedmachines with communications function due toprogress in the introduction of multifunction into

3 ●

products and the introduction of communications
function into specialized machines. It is expectedthat there will be increasing cases in which it isdifficult to distinguish between the screen
designs, between the frame designs, or evenbetween the screen design and the frame designof products that are different in type.
For the screen designs of business-oriented
software, user-friendliness and understandability
are emphasized, and many of such screen designs
have less decorative elements and are simpler
compared to the screen designs of products orservices for consumers.
2

Current situation
developmentof

screendesign(1) Basic knowledge on screen designs
Screen designs have developed intoeasier-to-understand and more user-friendly
versions as a variety of expressions have become
possible owing to the rapid improvement ofdrawing performance. There are various kinds ofscreen designs, including those of the small
component level such as buttons and bars as wellas those that change in chronological order.
(2) Development process of a screen
designThe development of a screen design can bedivided into the following six processes: "researchand benchmark, "concept planning," "ideageneration," production of a "prototype,""assistance for commercialization" including
manufacturing of parts, and "evaluation." Thedevelopment of a screen design is carried out at
an early stage of product planning in some cases.
In addition, follow-up associated with changes tosoftware is often conducted until just before theproduct is placed on the market. Therefore, thedevelopment of a screen design is carried out fora very long period within the entire period of
product development. Searches on other persons'design rights are conducted during the process ofidea generation and at the final stage ofdevelopment.

difference in required menu items among systems
intended for the same purpose; in addition,layouts are basically consolidated into several
patters; consequently, there is a limit to making
changes to screen designs, and it is thus difficult
to come out with uniqueness of designs.2(4) Relationships between screen design
development and the design system
There are various kinds of screen designs,
and they are closely related to the functions,purposes, etc. of products. In addition, they areassociated with users' experience and are not amere appearance or form. Furthermore, thedegree of a screen design's appeal to users asadded value and the degree of freedom of screen
design development significantly differ dependingon the products. It is necessary to examine
protection of screen designs under the design
system in consideration of the balance with thedegree of freedom of creation after carefulconsideration of the desirable form of protecting
such comprehensive originality and added valueof screen designs.

Ⅳ Regarding the Propriety of
Relaxing the Requirement ofIntegrity with an Article
The Japanese Design Act defines "design" as
the "shape, patterns or colors, or any combination
thereof, of an article (including a part of anarticle), which creates an aesthetic impression
through the eye" (Article 2(1) of the Design Act),and it provides that a design and an article isintegral and inseparable. As screen designs areprotected as parts of articles, they are also
handled as integral with and inseparable fromarticles.
Protection of screen designs under the
Design Act is subject to the following restrictions
due to this "requirement of integrity with anarticle," and the subject-matter of protection islimited compared to that in the United States,
Europe, etc.
[Restriction 1]
Only screen designs that have beenrecorded in an article in advance are subject toprotection, and screen designs of software, etc.
that are created a nd sold independently ofarticles and screen designs, etc. that aretransmitted through networks are not subject toprotection.
[Restriction 2](3) Current situation of development ofscreen designs of enterprise systems
The following has been pointed out: In
screen designing in enterprise systems
development, emphasis is placed on allocating
items necessary to realize a required function in ascreen with due consideration to operationality
and visibility; therefore, there is not much●

4 ●IIP Bulletin 2012 Vol.21

Screen designs themselves are not subject
to protection, and they are protected as parts ofarticles. Therefore, the same screen design ishandled as a different design if it is applied to adifferent article, and it is thus necessary to fileapplications and obtain rights for individual
articles.
[Reasons for the response policy (secretariat'splan)](i)

Regarding the requirement of integrity withan article
If the requirement of integrity with an article
is abolished at this time, there will be concerns
regarding a significant increase in the burdens of
examination and monitoring. Therefore, it isinappropriate to adopt the idea of relaxing or
abolishing the requirement of integrity with anarticle at this time.
(ii) Regarding expanding the scope of indirect
infringement
Provisions on indirect infringement should
be reinforced in order to eliminate acts ofcircumventing the law, including the act ofescaping from being accused of infringement of aright by assigning a product and a program
separately.
(iii) Regarding introduction of the single
application for multiple articles system
The single application for multiple articles
system should be introduced in order to reduce
procedural and cost burdens for applications fordesign registration for screen designs that areused in common in multiple articles.
(1) Regardingtheresponse
policy(secretariat's plan)
The committee presented the following
secretariat's plan as a measure to resolve theaforementioned restrictions that are imposed dueto this "requirement of integrity with an article,"and held discussions.
[Secretariat's plan]
The scope of indirect infringement is to be
expanded in relation to restriction 1 and thesingle application for multiple articles system is
to be introduced in relation to restriction 2 while
maintaining the requirement of integrity with anarticle(2) Consideration at the committee●

IIP Bulletin 2012 Vol.21

Many committee members said that it was
too early to abolish the requirement of integrity
with an article at this time and that therequirement should be maintained (however,some said that the requirement should bemaintained on the condition that arrangements
are made to enable screens of software programs
that are sold independently of articles to enjoy
protection through provisions on indirect
infringement). There are other opinions, such as
the opinion that articles should be handled assimilar articles if functions they already have aresimilar, the opinion that screens pertaining to theversion upgrade of a function that an article
already has should be made subject to protection,and the opinion that screens of cloud computing
services should be made subject to protection.
Many committee members assented to thenecessity of restraining acts of circumventing thelaw, including the act of escaping from being
accused of infringement of a right by assigning a
product and a program separately. However,opinion was divided with regard to the necessityof expanding the scope of indirect infringement.
The following opinions were raised in discussing
the expansion of the scope of indirect
infringement: (1) screens of software programs
which are sold independently of articles should bemade subject to protection; (2) careful discussion
should be held in order to prevent programs thatare not primarily for the purpose of use in articles
that have been registered as design rights frombecoming subject to protection; (3) careful
discussion should be held regarding whether theabolition of the requirement of integrity with anarticle at the time of distribution is essential for
expanding the scope of indirect infringement; (4)sufficient attention should be paid so that thesystem will be one that does not cause
disadvantages for manufacturers of devices; (5) in
the future, it will be necessary to consider somemeasures to prevent the obstruction of theindustrial activities of software manufacturers;and (6) careful discussion in sufficientconsideration of the opinions of manufacturers,
users, etc. is necessary in the future with regard
to web page images.
Many committee members assented to theintroduction of the single application for multiple
articles system. However, there was the opinion
that the introduction should be based on thepremise that examination is conducted for eacharticle and that careful discussion should be held
regarding the content of restraints imposed on
the articles that can be designated, the method of

5 ●filing (method of describing drawings), themethod of examining each article, the method of
responding to a notice of reasons for refusal, etc.;
the opinion that some sort of restrictions (forexample, limiting the number of designatedarticles to 100 and adding expenses with eacharticle added) are necessary; and the opinion that
careful discussion should be held regarding
harmony with the "single application for multiple
designs" system under the Geneva Act of theHague Agreement Concerning the International
Registration of Industrial Designs.
There was the opinion that discussion should
be continuously held on permitting the use of ageneric concept as a name of an article andidentifying an article by its function. In addition,
there were the opinions that, in said discussion, it
is necessary to make clear definitions and theopinion that it is necessary to avoid theoccurrence of the situation where therequirement of integrity with an article
substantively ceases to function.

Ⅴ Regarding the Propriety of
Relaxing
Function/Operation
Requirements
Screen designs that are protected under thecurrent design system are roughly divided into
"display images" and "operation images"
depending on their content, and images otherthan these are not subject to protection under the
Design Act.
- Display image (Article 2(1) of the Design Act)
Image which provides a display that isnecessary to carry out the functions of thearticle- Operation image (Article 2(2) of the Design Act)
Image which is provided for use in the operationthat is carried out in order to enable the article
to perform its functions
Due
to
these
function/operation
requirements, screen designs of computers,
screen designs only for decorative purposes, etc.
are not subject to protection. The subject-matterof protection in Japan is limited compared to thatin the United States, Europe, etc.
(1) Regardingtheresponse
policy(secretariat's plan)
As a measure to cope with the limitation ofthesubjectofprotection
by
the

●

"function/operation requirements," the committee
presented the following secretariat's plan andheld discussions.
[Secretariat's plan]
The function/operation requirements are to
be abolished.
[Reasons for the response policy (secretariat'splan)]
The function/operation requirements shouldbe abolished for the following reasons: (1) rational
reasons for distinguishing between specializedmachines and general-purpose machines areceasing to exist; (2) such requirements are notimposed in the United States, Europe, South
Korea, etc.; (3) it is becoming difficult to identify
the function and use of a screen; (4) it is difficult
to make a determination as the border between"decorative purposes" and "operational purposes"
is ambiguous; (5) predictability of the scope of adesign right may decline due to an increase in thenumber of elements for determination if"similarity of functions of screens" is determinedin the determination of similarity of designs; (6)patterns, etc. printed on articles are also subject
to protection under the current system; (7)overlapping of protection with the Copyright Act
does not become a big problem as long as
integrity with an article is maintained.
However, in expanding the subject ofprotection
throughabolitionofthefunction/operation requirements, it is necessary
to consider requirements for registration of
screen designs in order to prevent screen designs
that merely give a familiar impression from being
registered and to examine the system and its
implementation to reduce the burdens of
examination and monitoring.
(2) Considerations in the committee
Opinion was divided about expanding the
subject of protection through abolition/relaxationof the function/operation requirements. In
particular, regarding
screen designs ofcomputers (general-purpose), some committee
members said that their protection was necessary
while others said that they should not beprotected. The committee could not reach acommon conclusion. Incidentally, both groups
agreed that it was necessary to enrich thecollection of determination examples and to
disclose the determination method. In addition,some committee members requested themaintenance of the substantive examination

6 ●IIP Bulletin 2012 Vol.21

principle and the disclosure of the database on
publicly-known information.

Ⅵ Regarding Other Requirements
1

Regarding the effect of a design right(scope of rights, provisions on the actsof working, and provisions on indirect
infringement)(1) Regardingtheresponse
policy(secretariat's plan)
With regard to the effect of a design right(scope of rights, provisions on the acts of working,and provisions on indirect infringement), thecommittee presented the following secretariat'splan and held discussions.
[Secretariat's plan]
The scope of rights under the current
system is to be maintained. As stated in Chapter
IV "Regarding the Propriety of Relaxing theRequirement of Integrity with an Article," it is too
early to abolish the requirement of integrity withan article; therefore, the scope of rights under thecurrent system ("the article is identical or similar"
and "the form is identical or similar") should bemaintained. In addition, provisions on indirect
infringement will be reinforced after abolishing
the requirement of integrity with an article at thetime of distribution.
(2) Considerations in the committee
The committee members reached anagreement toward maintaining the scope of rights
under the current system ("the article is identicalor similar" and "the form is identical or similar").
Regardingprovisionson
indirect
infringement, the committee members indicatedlegislative problems in the case where a screen
design itself is regarded as an article. In addition,
there was the opinion that it is necessary toconsider provisions that will not be affected by
the provisions on "programs, etc." in the Patent
Act.
The expansion of the scope of indirect
infringement is as described in IV (2) above.

2

Regarding the description requirementsof drawings and data format in filing adesign application●

IIP Bulletin 2012 Vol.21(1) Regardingtheresponse
policy(secretariat's plan)
With regard to the description requirementsof drawings and data format in filing a design
application, the committee presented thefollowing secretariat's plan and held discussions.
[Secretariat's plan](i) Regarding the description requirements ofdrawings
The requirements of drawings are to berelaxed. For screen designs, ordinarily, thenecessity of submitting drawings on a direction
from which the screen is not visible (drawings
indicating only the frame body) is considered to
be low. Therefore, applicants should be allowed toomit such drawings. However, it is necessary to
pay attention to prevent the scope of the rightfrom becoming unclear.
(ii) Regarding data format
Applications filed using three-dimensional
CAD data or video data are not accepted.
Applications filed using three-dimensional CAD
data or video data are not to be accepted at thistime as user needs are not significant.
(2) Considerations in the committee
With regard to the requirements of drawings
for screen designs, the committee members
reached an agreement to the effect thatconsideration should be carried forward towardrelaxing the requirements while paying sufficientattention to prevent the scope of rights frombecoming unclear.
The committee members reached anagreement to the effect that applications filedusing three-dimensional CAD data or video data
are not to be accepted at this time and that if theneed for such applications increases, discussion
should be held on the propriety of accepting suchapplications while paying sufficient attention toprevent the scope of rights from becoming
unclear.
3

Other items to be considered

In addition, there was the opinion pointing
out the necessity of considering protection of
screen designs in consideration of other laws andregulations, the opinion that it is necessary to pay
attention to the low response rate of thequestionnaire survey, the opinion about the levelof determination of uneasiness of creation, theopinion pointing out the necessity of international

7 ●harmonization from the perspective of importanceof getting acquainted with practice concerning
obtainment of design rights for screen designs inpromoting international business development,
and the opinion that an aggressive stance ofprotecting companies' own products is a greater
necessity than anxiety about the exercise ofrights by other persons.

Ⅶ Conclusion(Proposals Concerning Design
System in the Future)
As a result of this study, it is consideredappropriate to take the following actions as adesign system in the future, in order to promote
appropriate protection of screen designs under
the Design Act. However, in promoting
discussion on the system in the future, it isdesirable to take actions, such as continuously
collecting information about the need forprotection in industries that do not use the design
system at present but are likely to use the design
system if the subject of protection is expanded.
1

Regarding the requirement of integrity
with an article(1) Regarding relaxation of the requirementof integrity with an article
Where the requirement of integrity with anarticle is abolished and screen designs that are
separated from articles are protected under the
Design Act, there will be concern that the burdenof examination and monitoring becomes
extremely heavy under the current system and in
the current environment. Therefore, therequirement of integrity with an article is to be
maintained in principle at this time, and the
propriety of protecting designs that are separated
from articles should be examined not as aproblem of screen designs but as a problem of the
Design Act as a whole in the future, in addition toconsidering the reduction of burden of monitoringother persons' rights and the clarification of thescope of effect of a design right.
(2) Regarding expansion of the scope ofindirect infringement
Careful discussion should be continuously
held on the expansion of the scope of indirect
infringement in consideration of the following
points, etc., taking into account that it isnecessary to restrain acts of circumventing thelaw, including the act of escaping from being●

accused of infringement of a right by assigning a
product and a program separately.
- Propriety of abolishing or relaxing the"requirement of integrity with an article at thetime of distribution"- Propriety of making screens of software
programs that are sold independently of articles
subject to protection under the Design Act- Handling of programs whose primary purpose is
not use in articles that have been registered as
design rights- Influence on the manufacturers of devices- Influence on the industrial activities of software
manufacturers- Handling of screen designs of websites- Handling of screen designs of services that areprovided through cloud computing(3) Regarding the single application for
multiple articles system
Careful discussion should be promoted
toward introducing the single application for
multiple articles system in consideration of thefollowing points, etc., taking into account that
there is the need for reducing the burden
involved in attempting to obtain a right for ascreen design applied to multiple articles.
- Propriety of requiring examination to be
conducted for each article in the same manner as
the current system- Content of constraints imposed on articles thatcan be designated, filing method (method of
describing drawings), examination method forindividual articles, and method of responding toa notice of reasons for refusal- Propriety of imposing some sort of restrictions(for example, limiting the number of designatedarticles to 100 and adding expenses with eacharticle added)- Harmony with the single application for multiple
designs system under the Geneva Act of theHague Agreement Concerning the International
Registration of Industrial Designs(4) Other
Careful discussion should be continuously
held with regard to the following items.
- Propriety of permitting the use of a genericconcept as the name of an article- Propriety of introducing a system ofidentifying an article by its use or function

8 ●IIP Bulletin 2012 Vol.21

2Regardingtherequirementsfunction/operation

Careful discussion should be continuously
held with regard to the function/operation
requirements in consideration of the following
points, etc.
- Propriety of making the screen designs ofgeneral-purpose machines subject to protection
under the Design Act- Propriety of making screen designs that are only
for decorative purposes subject to protection
under the Design Act- Necessity of international harmonization interms of the subject of protection under the
Design Act- System and its implementation to reduce theburden of monitoring other persons' rights- System and its implementation to make clear thescope of design rights for screen designs- Examination standards for screen designs
3

Other

(1) Requirements of drawings
With regard to the requirements of drawingsof a screen design, discussion directed towardrelaxing them should be carried forward while
paying sufficient attention to prevent the scope ofrights from becoming unclear.
(2) Regarding data format
Applications filed using three-dimensional
CAD data or video data are not to be permitted at
this time. If the need for such applications
increases, discussion should be held regarding
the propriety of permitting such applications
while paying sufficient attention to prevent thescope of rights from becoming unclear.
(Researcher: Hiroki SAITO)
1The Industrial Design Protection Act provides that"'design' means the shape, pattern, color or a
combination of these in an article that produces anaesthetic impression in the sense of sight; the same
applies to a part of an article and the style ofcalligraphy unless Article 12 of this Act applies)"(Article 2(1) of the Industrial Design Protection Act).

2"Reference IV – 2. Examples of screen designs in theinformation service industry," page 2 (Japan
Information
Technology
Services
Industry
Association).

●

IIP Bulletin 2012 Vol.21

9 ●