[Trademarks / Cancellation for non-use] IP High Court, Heisei 22 (Gyo-Ke) No. 10083 — “ECOPAC”
Updated: 4 days ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Trademarks
Topics: Examination and appeal practice
First published on this site: 2026-10-10
Display/classification checked: 2026-10-10
[Trademarks / Cancellation for non-use] IP High Court, Heisei 22 (Gyo-Ke) No. 10083 — “ECOPAC”
*Prosecution history estoppel prevents an argument that the registered mark conveys the concept of “environmentally friendly packaging.”
→ The registered mark “ECOPAC” is not equivalent to “エコパック.”
→ Cancellation for non-use.
(Excerpts from the judgment, translated; portions omitted)
At present, the mark as used, “エコパック,” conveys the concept of “economical, environmentally conscious packaging containers.” [...] There is room to interpret the registered mark as conveying that concept because traders and consumers could recall “ecology” from “ECO” and “pack,” meaning packaging containers, from “PAC.” [...]
However, throughout prosecution of the registered mark, the plaintiff repeatedly argued that it had a distinctive composition and consisted of a coined word giving rise only to the pronunciation “ekopakku,” without any particular concept. Registration followed an appeal against refusal. [...] The Patent Office accepted the plaintiff’s arguments, granted registration and subsequently decided that registration should be maintained. [...]
The plaintiff itself clearly argued during prosecution that “PAC” differed in composition from the foreign word meaning “packaging containers,” and that “ECOPAC,” continuously joined with “ECO,” did not signify “environmentally conscious packaging containers” but would be perceived and understood as a coined word created by the plaintiff that could not give rise to a particular concept. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot now reverse its earlier position and argue that the mark conveys the concept of “environmentally friendly packaging”; doing so would violate the principle of estoppel. [...] The plaintiff’s argument that the registered mark and the mark as used are identical under accepted social concepts, premised on identity of pronunciation and concept, cannot be accepted.
Original article (2025-08-14):
Related articles
Update history
This history records actual publication, display, and classification changes made on this site.
2026-10-10: First published the LinkedIn original on this site and set the classification, article information, and consultation link.
2026-10-10: Aligned the translation link, canonical URL and hreflang with the verified public URLs.
2026-10-10: Updated related-article links. The original article text was not changed.
Comments