[Trademark] IP High Court, 2009 (Gyo-Ke) 10075 <Nakano> — Taiji Rouliqiu Case: No Distinctiveness; Article 4(1)(xvi) Objection
Updated: 1 day ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Trademarks
Topics: Distinctiveness
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2024-08-17 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[Trademark] IP High Court, 2009 (Gyo-Ke) 10075 <Nakano>
Registered mark “Taiji Rouliqiu”
For the designated services “planning, managing, or holding Taiji Rouliqiu events,” “providing sports facilities for Taiji Rouliqiu,” “providing amusement facilities for Taiji Rouliqiu,” and “renting sports equipment for Taiji Rouliqiu” (Class 41), distinctiveness is lacking (Trademark Act Article 3(1)(iii)).
—As of the registration decision, distinctiveness as indicating the trademark owner's activities was not recognized.
For designated goods such as “sports equipment used for teaching tai chi” (Class 28), use for other purposes gives rise to a likelihood of misperception of the quality of services (Trademark Act Article 4(1)(xvi)).
(Excerpts from the court's reasoning)
<Trademark Act Article 3(1)(iii)>
(1) Marks listed in Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Act are considered to lack the requirements for registration because they describe or indicate the place of production, place of sale, or other characteristics of goods, and anyone would wish to use them as necessary and appropriate indications in trade. Allowing one particular person exclusive use would therefore be inappropriate in the public interest. In addition, they are commonly used indications that in many cases lack the ability to distinguish one's goods from those of others and cannot function as trademarks (see Supreme Court, Third Petty Bench, April 10, 1979, Collection of Judgments in Civil Cases No. 126, p. 507 [Hanrei Jiho No. 927, p. 233]).
(2) Based on evidence submitted by the parties, the court found that Taiji Rouliqiu was devised as a new sport (the activity at issue) in China in 1991 by A, an associate professor at the Jinzhong College of Shanxi Medical University (assistant professor at Shanxi Provincial Health School); that it is a racket-and-ball sport incorporating tai chi movements; and that it was practiced both competitively by hitting a ball across a net on a court and as a performance to musical accompaniment. Regarding its spread in China, the court found that nationwide instructor training courses were held from 1994 to 1996, that Taiji Rouliqiu was an official event at the Third National Workers' Games in 1996, and that an interview with A appeared in the People's Daily. It also found that, from 2002 onward, the Chinese Senior Citizens' Sports Association held training courses promoting it as a sport for older people and organized national tournaments. The court assessed it as clear that the activity had become established as a sport in China by the registration decision date, August 10, 2004. Regarding its spread in Japan, the court found that Plaintiff X2 received instructor training and obtained coaching qualifications in 2002, introduced it in a Sakai municipal citizens' course, conducted training at the Kanaoka Park Gymnasium in Sakai, and established the Taiji Rouliqiu Promotion Association in August 2003. It further found that the defendant's citizen-exchange delegation to China participated in celebrations in Beijing marking the 25th anniversary of the Japan–China Treaty of Peace and Friendship, where the activity was demonstrated. The court assessed the activity as having been known in Japan as a Chinese-born sport under the name “Taiji Rouliqiu” by August 10, 2004, the registration decision date.
(3) As of the registration decision date, August 10, 2004, “Taiji Rouliqiu,” the mark at issue, was generally used in China as the name of the sport referring to the activity, and the activity was also known in Japan as a sport originating in China under the name “Taiji Rouliqiu.” Even the facts found above do not permit a conclusion that, as of that date, the mark had distinctiveness as indicating Plaintiff X2's activities. Therefore, for the designated services “planning, managing, or holding Taiji Rouliqiu events,” “providing sports facilities for Taiji Rouliqiu,” “providing amusement facilities for Taiji Rouliqiu,” and “renting sports equipment for Taiji Rouliqiu,” the mark indicates the quality of those goods or services in a commonly used [source ends mid-sentence]
<Trademark Act Article 4(1)(xvi)>
As of the registration decision date, August 10, 2004, “Taiji Rouliqiu,” the mark at issue, was generally used in China as the name of the sport referring to the activity, and in Japan the activity was also known as a Chinese-born sport under that name. Accordingly, use of the mark on its designated goods “sports equipment used for teaching tai chi” gives rise to a likelihood of misperception of the quality of the goods. Further, among its designated services, use for “teaching arts, sports, or knowledge relating to tai chi instruction,” and for “planning, managing, or holding sporting events; providing sports facilities; providing amusement facilities; renting sports equipment” other than “planning, managing, or holding Taiji Rouliqiu events; providing sports facilities for Taiji Rouliqiu; providing amusement facilities for Taiji Rouliqiu; renting sports equipment for Taiji Rouliqiu,” can be said to give rise to a likelihood of misperception of the quality of services (Trademark Act Article 4(1)(xvi)). The JPO decision to that effect cannot be said to be erroneous.
Translator’s notes (editorial)
The supplied source ends subsection (3) mid-sentence at 普通に用いら; no missing conclusion has been invented. The author’s summary uses “quality of services” when discussing designated goods, and this wording is preserved.
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
Comments