[Article / Trademarks] Examining use of the consent system through model cases (Mariko Nakayama and Naoharu Takeyama, Patent, October 2025)
Updated: 3 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Publication review
Categories: Trademarks
Main topics: Confusion / Examination and appeal practice
First published on this website: October 1, 2026
Display and classification checked: October 1, 2026 (not a revalidation of the legal analysis)
[Article / Trademarks] Examining use of the consent system through model cases (Mariko Nakayama and Naoharu Takeyama, Patent, October 2025)
1. The core of Japan's consent system: A reserved-consent system
Unlike many other countries, Japan uses a reserved-consent system.
⇒ Consent from the cited trademark's proprietor alone does not secure registration. Registration under Trademark Act Article 4(4) is allowed only if the JPO ultimately finds no likelihood of confusion as to source.
2. Key practical points (insights from model cases)
① Wording of agreements (consent letters)
Identifying goods/services: Wording limiting use to specified goods is nearly essential. Even without naming particular goods, expressly stating differences in distribution channels or consumers can demonstrate an intention to avoid future confusion.
Between group companies: Strong wording such as “take mutual measures to avoid confusion” is a powerful factor negating confusion.
Adding a house mark: Even if only the applied-for mark bears a house mark, agreeing and implementing the specific practice of always displaying it together with the house mark can clearly distinguish sources.
② Arguments in written submissions
Fact-based explanations: Detailed evidence of business realities not fully addressed in the agreement—consumer segments, expertise, price ranges and differences in production departments—should be supplied in written arguments.
Handling non-use: If the cited mark is actually unused, stating this in the agreement could disadvantage its proprietor. Wording alternatives, such as differences in distribution channels, are therefore recommended to avoid addressing areas of de facto non-use.
Original article: https://lnkd.in/g7sW-42h
Related articles
Updates and corrections
Substantive corrections and additions are recorded separately from classification, related links and display changes.
October 1, 2026: First publication of the author's original LinkedIn text on this website. Article type, categories, topic tags, sources and consultation navigation added.
2026-10-01 | Display maintenance: added case references stated in the original or language-alternate metadata; not a revalidation of legal analysis.
2026-10-01 | Name notation: replaced verified Japanese-script personal names with Roman-letter forms in this English article and its navigation. Legal analysis and original publication date unchanged.
Comments