日本設計專利法的部分修法

擴張保護對象(建築和室內設計)
(1) 建築的外觀
根據現行法律,“動產”不包括建築物;因此,它們不受設計專利的保護(第2(1)條)。
然而,近年來,越來越多的企業透過獨特的建築物外觀,試圖吸引更多顧客,或用以打造自己的品牌。因此,透過設計專利加以保護建築物的外觀的需求也隨之增加。在美國和歐洲,建築物的外觀已受到設計權的保護。
因此,本修正案在“設計專利”的定義中增加了“建築物形狀”,建築物的外觀設計也受到設計專利的保護。
(2) 室內設計(新設計專利法第8-2條)
現行法律採用的一個物品申請一個設計專利。且每件設計專利需分別申請(亦即,一件申請案中,不得於一幅圖中同時申請多項設計專利)(第7條)。除非該設計專利為“一套物品的設計”(第8條)。如果多個物品可“統一為一個整體”,則可以將其作為單一設計專利提出申請註冊。
近年來,越來越多的企業通過在店內裝修中創造獨特的品牌價值來提供服務和銷售產品。
為保護具有設計專利的店鋪室內設計,在本次修法時,將店舖內設備、裝修(室內)等組成物品有關的設計列為設計專利的保護對象,可以以單項設計專利提出申請註冊。但是,整體室內設計需具有“創造統一的美學”。

日本外观设计法的部分修法

扩张保护对象(建筑和室内设计)

(1) 建筑的外观
根据现行法律,“动产”不包括建筑物;因此,它们不受外观设计专利的保护(第2(1)条)。
然而,近年来,越来越多的企业透过独特的建筑物外观,试图吸引更多顾客,或用以打造自己的品牌。因此,透过外观设计专利加以保护建筑物的外观的需求也随之增加。在美国和欧洲,建筑物的外观已受到外观设计专利的保护。
因此,本修正案在“外观设计专利”的定义中增加了“建筑物形状”,建筑物的外观设计也受到外观设计专利的保护。

(2) 室内设计(新外观设计法第8-2条)
现行法律采用的一个物品申请一个外观设计专利。且每件外观设计专利需分别申请(亦即,一件申请案中,不得于一幅图中同时申请多项外观设计专利)(第7条)。除非该外观设计专利为“一套物品的设计”(第8条)。如果多个物品可“统一为一个整体”,则可以将其作为单一外观设计专利提出申请注册。
近年来,越来越多的企业通过在店内装修中创造独特的品牌价值来提供服务和销售产品。
为保护具有外观设计专利的店铺室内设计,在本次修法时,将店铺内设备、装修(室内)等组成物品有关的设计列为外观设计专利的保护对象,可以以单项外观设计专利提出申请注册。但是,整个室内设计需具有“创造统一的美学”。

Partial Revision of the Japanese Design Law

For Expansion of the protectable Design (Architecture and Interior design)

(1) Protection of Building Exterior
Under the current law, buildings are not included in “articles (= movables)”; therefore, they are not protected by design rights (Article 2 (1)).
However, in recent years, there is an increasing number of companies which have been trying to improve the ability to attract customers and build their own brands with an unique appearance.  Thus, the demand has occurred for the exterior of buildings to be protected by design as well.
In the US and Europe, the exterior of buildings is also protected by design rights.
Hence, the definition of “design” was added to “shape of building …” in this amendment, and the exterior design of the building was also protected by design rights.

(2) Protection of Interior Design (Article 8-2 of the New Design Act)
The current law adopts the idea that a design is established on one article.  In addition, the principle of one application for a single design is stipulated that a design registration application must be individually made for each design (an application must not be filed with multiple designs in one drawing) (Article 7).  An exception to this is the “design for a set of articles” system (Article 8), it is said that it can be filed and registered as a single design, in case multiple articles are considered to be “unified as a whole”.
In recent years, there has been an increasing number of cases in which companies provide services and sell products by creating unique brand values in their interior decoration of stores.
In order to protect the interior design of such stores with design rights, in this amendment, designs related to article which composes the equipment and the decoration (interior) inside the store can be applied and also registered as single design.  However, the design can be approved only “when a unified aesthetic is created” as the entire interior.

Fast Track Examination

Regarding the trademark application, the JPO announced that the operation called “Fast Track Examination” will be changed for applications.

Below are the details of  changes.

FYI, if an application is not subject to fast-track examination, it takes 12 months on average!

 

[BFORE]
The JPO starts the examination 2 months earlier than the normal application. (10 months on average)

[AFTER]
The JPO starts the examination in about 6 months from an application date.

 

This change is effective from an application on February 1, 2020.

快速审查的运用将变更

关于商标申请,快速审查(满足一定条件的商标申请案)的运用将变更如下。
非快速审查的商标申请案件平均在12个月内着手进行审查!
  [现行]
・比一般商标申请案提前2个月着手进行审查(平均约10个月)
   [修改后]
・从申请日开始约6个月后开始着手进行审查
2020年2月份申请的商标申请案开始适用。

专利法等部分修订法案的实施日期

内阁批准关于「专利法等部分修订法案的实施日期」的内阁命令。

2019年11月1日,内阁批准内阁命令,规定专利法等部分修订法案(以下简称“修订法案”)的实施日期。修订法案补充条款第一条规定实施日期为2020年4月1日。

內閣批准關於「專利法等部分修訂法案的實施日期」的內閣命令

2019年11月1日,內閣批准內閣命令,規定專利法等部分修訂法案(以下簡稱”修訂法案”)的實施日期。修訂法案補充條款第一條規定實施日期為2020年4月1日。

Enforcement Date of Partial Revision of the Patent Act, etc.

On November 1, 2019, the Cabinet approved the Cabinet Order for Stipulating the Enforcement Date of the Act for Partial Revision of the Patent Act, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Revised Act”). The Cabinet Order is to stipulate the enforcement date prescribed in the main clause of Article 1 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Revised Act as April 1, 2020.
内阁批准关于「专利法等部分修订法案的实施日期」的内阁命令。
2019年11月1日,内阁批准内阁命令,规定专利法等部分修订法案(以下简称“修订法案”)的实施日期。修订法案补充条款第一条规定实施日期为2020年4月1日。
內閣批准關於「專利法等部分修訂法案的實施日期」的內閣命令
2019年11月1日,內閣批准內閣命令,規定專利法等部分修訂法案(以下簡稱”修訂法案”)的實施日期。修訂法案補充條款第一條規定實施日期為2020年4月1日。

“Taj Mahal” registered in Japan

Examiner:
“The letters” Taj Mahal “represent a famous tomb in India.
The consumer recognizes that it is goods manufactured or sold in Taj Mahal and the surrounding area”.
It merely indicates the place of production or sale of the goods in a commonly used manner.

Judgment of the trial (judgment of 3 judges):
By ex officio investigation, the fact that “Taj Mahal” is generally used in business cannot be found as the place of production or sale of haursia which is a kind of succulent plant.

It was not possible to find the circumstances that the consumer should recognize it as the expression of the product area, sales place, etc.

It cannot be judged that it indicates the place of production of the goods, the place of sale, etc., nor can it be judged that there is a possibility of misidentification of the quality of the goods.

Appln.No. 2016-143567(T2016-143567)
Appeal No. 2018-8340

Comment:
A trademark representing a famous tourist destination such as “Taj Mahal” is registered OK! under some conditions.

judgement of similarity: YUME and DREAM

Suntory Holdings has registered the trademark “Yume” in kanji (it means dream) for the goods “beer, beer flavored low-malt beer” in class 32.

Then, Asahi group Holdings has raised an opposition for the cancellation of the above trademark registration based on their registered trademarks “DREAM” (and two others).

Finally, JPO has judged “the appearance and the appellations are quite different although both concepts (meanings) have in common, that is, both are dissimilar trademarks.”

In other words, we need to obstruct that the third party registers a trademark “DREAM” if we register the trademark “Yume”.

The reverse is also true.

Hmm, what a mess!

Misregistration…?

 

 

 

 

The trademark (No. 5878610) attached here is clearly similar to another person’s registered trademark “FINE” (No. 5879869) (it’s ordinary typeface). Although the trademark was filed later, it was registered earlier than the above mentioned others.

Then, this registration of the trademark was canceled by “opposition” which is a system to complain about someone’s trademark registration.

This case means it is important to pay attention to what kind of trademark was registered.