[Trademarks / Article] “Onomatopoeia as trademarks: Current conditions in Japan and other countries” (Masako Nishimura, AIPPI (2025), Vol. 70, No. 11)
更新日：10月9日
Article information
Content type: Publication review
Categories: Trademarks / United States / China / South Korea / Europe / Other foreign jurisdictions
Issues: Distinctiveness / Descriptive marks
First published on this site: 2026-10-03
Display and classification checked: 2026-10-03
[Trademarks / Article] “Onomatopoeia as trademarks: Current conditions in Japan and other countries” (Masako Nishimura, AIPPI (2025), Vol. 70, No. 11)
1. Onomatopoeic trademarks and distinctiveness in Japan
Japanese frequently uses onomatopoeia, including mimetic words. Many such marks are registered, including “mochimochi” and “sakusaku” for textures, and the newer word “mofumofu.” Registration is generally denied where a term describes the quality of goods or services; otherwise, registration is possible.
In the “sasatto” case for tea, coffee and other goods, the Tokyo High Court denied distinctiveness because it conveyed meanings such as “can be made quickly.” The newer word “pien” was also denied distinctiveness for apparel as expressing feelings such as disappointment. Assessment requires checking specialist onomatopoeia dictionaries as well as general dictionaries such as Kojien.
2. Other countries and regions
Inquiries to law firms and others indicated no special examination standards for onomatopoeic marks: general distinctiveness standards apply.
Europe and North America (Germany, France, the US and Canada): Animal sounds have been registered for related goods. “Miam” has been registered in France, although the approach has become stricter. In Canada, onomatopoeia expressing a product's inherent sound is likely to be refused as descriptive.
Asia (China, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan): China more readily recognizes distinctiveness where the connection with the designated goods is weak, but denies it for direct expressions of texture. Hong Kong is relatively strict. South Korea denies distinctiveness where a term immediately suggests the nature of the goods.
3. Conclusions and proposals
Selection should consider not only registrability but also whether the mark gives consumers a favorable impression. Research into “trademark linguistics,” bridging linguistics and trademark practice, is needed.
Original article: https://lnkd.in/gqX_u_X2
Original source shown in the LinkedIn preview: https://www.aippi.or.jp/info/view/515
Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7511584953210503168/
Related articles
Update and correction history
Dated entries are added for corrections, supplements, classification, display, and related-article changes, separately from the first publication date.
2026-10-03: First publication on this site from the LinkedIn original.
Consultation guide by purpose: https://www.takaishihideki.com/en/single-post/consultation-guide-en
