1: JPO Grants TM Registration for 3D Shape of the Popular Pocky Cookie

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) granted trademark registration for the three-dimensional (3D) shape of Ezaki Glico’s iconic “Pocky” cookie, recognizing that the shape had acquired distinctiveness in relation to chocolate confections in Class 30 [TM Reg. No. 6951539].

2: UNIQLO Lost in Trademark Opposition against UNIPRO

UNIQLO lost in its attempt to oppose TM Reg no. 6746724 for the mark “UNIPRO” in class 28 due to dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion with a world-famous Japanese clothing brand “UNIQLO”.

3: STARBUCKS Unsuccessful Invalidation Action against Trademark “STARBOSS”

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an invalidation action claimed by Starbucks Inc. against TM Reg no. 6595964 for wordmark “STARBOSS” in class 32 due to dissimilarity to and unlikelihood of confusion with the world’s largest coffee chain “STARBUCKS”.

4: IP High Court ruling: STARBUCKS vs STARBOSS

The Japan IP High Court did not side with Starbucks Corporation in a trademark dispute between “STARBUCKS” and “STARBOSS”, and affirmed the JPO decision that found “STARBOSS” dissimilar to, and less likelihood of confusion with “STARBUCKS when used on beverages.

5: Trademark dispute: SONY vs SONIMART

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) sided with SONY in a trademark invalidation action against TM Reg no. 6162062 for word mark “SONIMARK” in classes 35 and 42 by finding a likelihood of confusion with famous mark “SONY”.

6: MONSTER STRIKE vs MONSTER ENERGY

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not decide in favour of Monster Energy Company in its opposition to Defensive Mark Reg. No. 5673517 for the word mark “MONSTER STRIKE” in Classes 29, 30, and 32.

7: YONEX Scored Win in Registering Color mark

On October 21, 2025, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) granted registration of a color mark that consists of blue and green colors, filed by Yonex Co., Ltd. to use on badminton shuttlecocks by finding acquired distinctiveness of the color combination.

8: HERMES Defeated with Trademark Opposition against KIMONO TWILLY

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Hermes International against TM Reg no. 6753650 for the word mark “KIMONO TWILLY” in Class 18, claiming a likelihood of confusion with the Hermes scarves “TWILLY”.

9: JPO Said No to Register Kawasaki Green Color Mark

On March 19, 2025, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) finally decided to reject a color mark application filed a decade ago by Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., which sought to register a green color used on the world-famous Kawasaki motorcycles.

10: TOMMY HILFIGER vs TOMTOMMY

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B.V. in an opposition against TM Reg no. 6604265 “TOMTOMMY” due to dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion with “TOMMY” and “TOMMY HILFIGER”.

YONEX Color Mark

Yonex Co., Ltd. filed a trademark application with the Japan Patent Office on September 6, 2019, for a mark that consists of a combination of blue (Pantone 2935C) and green (Pantone 355C) (color ratio 50%:50%), designating “sports equipment; badminton equipment” and other goods in Class 28 [TM App no. 2019-118815].

Rejection by JPO examiner

On July 27, 2022, the JPO examiner rejected the mark under Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law, due to a lack of inherent distinctive character. Furthermore, while acknowledging that a certain number of traders and consumers recognize the color combination perse as an indicator of the applicant’s goods in view of the applicant’s extensive use of the mark on badminton shuttlecocks for years, and its leading market share, the examiner had an opinion that a significant number of people do not recognize it as a source indicator to distinguish from others. Accordingly, the examiner concluded that the mark does not satisfy the requirements to apply Article 3(2) since the applicant failed to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness of the mark in relation to the goods in question.

Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal against the rejection on November 1, 2022, and then restricted the designated goods to “Shuttlecocks” in Class 28.

JPO Appeal Board decision

The JPO Appeal Board observed that the evidence submitted by the applicant would sufficiently demonstrate that the color combination has played a role in identifying the specific source of Shuttlecocks by taking into account the following facts.

1. The mark has been used continuously for over 48 years, since at least 1976, on Yonex Badminton shuttlecocks. The color combination appears on the applicant’s website, in product catalogs, internet articles, magazines, newspapers, and television programs. The shuttlecocks bearing the mark have been officially used at numerous international badminton tournaments, including the Olympic Games and World Championships.
2. Yonex shuttlecocks ranked first in the domestic market for 11 consecutive years from 2009 to 2019, with a market share of approximately 70% to 80% during that period.
3. According to survey results targeting 1,053 men and women aged 15 to 59 who currently play or have played badminton or tennis, 57.87% of the respondents who have played both tennis (including soft tennis) and badminton could associate the color combination with the applicant in the answer to an open or closed (multiple choice) question. For those who have experienced badminton, but not tennis, 56.59% could associate it with the applicant in either question.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found that the examiner erred in applying Article 3(2), and thus decided to register the color combination as a trademark.

Narrow gate to color mark registration

On April 1, 2015, the Japan Trademark Law has opened the door to the registration of marks consisting solely of a color or colors. To date, 589 color marks have been filed with the JPO, and only 11 have been granted registration. This represents a success rate of only 1.9%.

Kawasaki Green

On the very first day, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., famous for sports and racing bikes, sought for registration of a color mark consisting solely of light green (R105, G190, B40) in connection with motorcycles (cl.12). [TM App no. 2015-30667]

In addition, Kawasaki filed two color mark applications for a single light green color represented on fuel tank (position) and a color combination of light green and black as shown below for use on motorcycles (cl. 12) with the JPO on the same day, but these were all withdrawn or rejected due to a lack of inherent and acquired distinctiveness. [TM App nos. 2015-30668, 2015-30696]

Allegedly, Kawasaki has been using the light green color on their Ninja, KX, KLX and other motorcycles since 1975, but, according to the catalogs, the color was used on less than 40 % of the total Kawasaki motorcycles. Besides, annual sales of the motorcycles using the light green color averaged approximately 23.4%.

On April 19, 2022, the JPO examiner rejected the color mark based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Kawasaki filed an appeal against the rejection and agued acquired distinctiveness of the light green in connection to motorcycles on July 19, 2022.

In order to demonstrate the acquired distinctiveness of the light color as a source indicator of Kawasaki motorcycles, Kawasaki conducted the market research that targeted a total of 1,000 men and women aged from 16 to 79 who has a motorcycle driver’s license, 90.5% of the interviewees who answered that they had seen the color in connection with motorcycles or motorcycle shops (66.1% of the total interviewees) could associate the color with Kawasaki.

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board noted the light green has acquired a certain degree of recognition among relevant consumers as a source indicator of Kawasaki motorcycles in view of substantial use for the past five decades.

However, the Board found that the market research was insufficient to objectively assess the acquired distinctiveness of the applied mark, as it was only targeted at motorcycle license holders. Moreover, competitors also manufacture many motorcycles with a similar green color.

According to the IP High Court’s decision, a mark consisting of a single color is not registrable unless it has acquired an extremely high degree of recognition as an indication of a particular source as a result of substantial use, to the extent that the exclusive use of the color would not cause detriment to the public in general.

In light of the fact that the light green color was used on less than 40 % of Kawasaki’s motorcycles, and the annual sales of the motorcycles using the light green color averaged approximately 23.4%, the Board has no reason to believe that the applied color has acquired a high degree of secondary meaning to outweigh the detrimental effect on the public at large if registered.

Based on the foregoing, the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection and decided to refuse the applied mark based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law.

It is appealable to the IP High Court until May 8, 2025.

1: Japan IP High Court said No to registering the color of Hermes packaging

The Japan IP High Court ruled to dismiss Herme’s appeal against the JPO decision that rejected Hermes packaging color due to a lack of inherent and acquired distinctiveness.

2: Can a ‘Letter of Consent’ guarantee successful trademark registration in Japan?

The revised Japan Trademark Law will come into effect on April 1, 2024, introducing the “Letter of Consent” as a means to overcome conflicts with earlier trademark registrations.

3: COCO vs. KOKO

In a recent administrative decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) found that the trademarks “CoCo” and “koko” are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion.

4: CHANEL defeated in Trademark Opposition against “COCOCHI”

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) handed a loss to Chanel SARL in trademark opposition against TM Reg no. 6674710 for the “COCOCHI” mark by finding unlikelihood of confusion with “COCO”.

5: ZARA Unsuccessful Opposition against TM “LAZARA”

On April 22, 2024, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (INDITEX), owner of the fashion brand “ZARA”, against TM Reg no. 6699667 for word mark “LAZARA” in classes 25 due to dissimilar marks and unlikelihood of confusion with “ZARA”.

6: CHANEL Lost in Trademark opposition against “COCOBABY”

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not side with CHANEL in an opposition against TM Reg no. 6650252 for wordmark “COCOBABY” in class 25 by finding dissimilarity of mark between “COCOBABY” and “COCO”.

7: Trademark Dispute: Chateau Mouton Rothschild vs MOUTON

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) declared invalidation of TM Reg no. 6090508 for wordmark “MOUTON” in classes 35 and 43 due to a likelihood of confusion with famous mark “Mouton” as a source indicator of Chateau Mouton Rothschild, one of the most famous wine estates in the world.

8: Hermes Victory with Invalidating Birkin Lookalike Design

The Japan IP High Court has ruled in favor of Hermes in a dispute over the validity of Design Reg no. 1606558 by finding a likelihood of confusion with Hermes.

9: Trademark dispute: VALENTINO GARAVANI vs GIANNI VALENTINO

In a trademark opposition claimed by Valentino S.p.A. against TM Reg no. 6550051 for the GIANNI VALENTINO mark, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided to cancel the registration due to a conflict with earlier IR no. 975800 for the VALENTINO GARAVANI mark.

10: Japan IP High Court gives Green Light to 3D “Godzilla” shape as Trademark

On October 30, 2024, the Japan IP High Court disaffirmed the administrative decision by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) not to register the 3D shape of the eponymous character from the film “Shin Godzilla” as a trademark.

Narrow gate to color mark registration

On April 1, 2015, the JPO commenced registration of marks consisting solely of a color or colors. To date, 585 color marks have been filed with the JPO, and only 11 have been granted registration. This equates to a success rate of just 1.9%.

Kawasaki Green

On the very first day, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., famous for sports and racing bikes in Japan, filed an application for a color mark consisting of light green (R105, G190, B40) represented on fuel tank as shown below in connection with motorcycles (cl.12).

JPO decision

As anticipated, the JPO examiner rejected the mark due to a lack of inherent and acquired distinctiveness on April 18, 2022 based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law in seven years after the initial filing.

In the refusal decision, the examiner found from the produced evidence that Kawasaki has used the applied color on fuel tank of motorcycles since 1998, however, more than 70% of the Kawasaki motorcycles in average have a fuel tank painted in other color.

The results of the interview, which targeted men and women aged 16 to 79 who own motorcycles or a license to drive one, indicate that 54.7% of license holders and 67.5% of bike owners were able to recognize Kawasaki from the color. In this respect, the examiner had a view that the results were not persuasive to find acquired distinctiveness of the applied mark given Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, and Kawasaki, the four major motorcycle manufacturers, have held a near monopoly of the market for years, and each manufacturer is known to have its own distinctive color.

Accordingly, the examiner held the applied mark shall not be registrable under Article 3(2) of the Japan Trademark Law.

Kawasaki filed an appeal against the examiner’s rejection on July 19, 2022 and argued acquired distinctiveness of the color “green” to indicate a source of the Kawasaki motorcycles. After two years of dispute with the JPO Appeal Board, Kawasaki voluntarily withdrew the appeal on November 15, 2024.

Color mark of Hermes box

On August 23, 2023, HERMES INTERNARTIONAL filed an appeal with the Japan IP High Court to seek the cancellation of the JPO refusal decision (Appeal case no. 2021-13743) that denied registration of TM App no. 2018-133223 for a color mark consisting of orange on the entire box and brown on the upper outline of the box. (see below)

The application designates various goods in classes 3, 14, 16, 18, and retail services for the goods in class 35.

Second Market Research

HERMES conducted a second market research study in August 2023 to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness of its packaging color. The study targeted men and women in their 30s to 50s residing in nine prefectures who expressed interest in bags, accessories, watches, cosmetics, or perfume and had purchased either of these items within the past six months.

According to the second research report, 39.2% of respondents (2,060 in total) answered Hermes when shown three Hermes boxes in different shapes. 44.4% chose Hermes from the ten options (It is notable that 27.2% of respondents selected “Louis Vuitton” as their answer).

IP High Court decision

In their ruling, the judges pointed out the applied mark is classified into a mark consisting of colors, but from descriptions of mark, it is considered a two-color mark combined with a three-dimensional shape (a box).

The judges also noted the submitted evidence did not demonstrate the actual use of the applied mark in relation to perfumery of class 3 and paper boxes, paper bags, paper packages and wrapping papers of class 16, nor did it substantiate the use of the mark in relation to retail services for these goods in class 35.

The judge recognized that the “Hermes” brand has gained significant recognition in Japan, and its degree of renown is considered to be one of the most prominent among all fashion brands. From the submitted advertisement and publications, the applied mark evidently has been used as a symbolic color to indicate “Hermes” in a marketing tactic designed to enhance brand value. It is clear that the Hermes box is a well-known and important identifier for consumers interested in or who have purchased luxury fashion items.

The issue is whether relevant consumers can identify Hermes from the colors per se on Hermes box, without the word “Hermes” and the horse and carriage emblem. In this respect, the court said it useful to review brand recognition research especially in a case for color mark. The judges said the result of two market researches are sufficient (Recognition rate: approximately 40%) to admit acquired distinctiveness in general. However, two researches do not target general consumers by excluding age under 29 and over 60, and limiting their incomes JPY10,000,000 and above (1^st research) or those who expressed interest in bags, accessories, watches, cosmetics, or perfume and had purchased either of these items within the past six months (2^nd research).

Given the applied mark covers various goods that are regularly consumed by the general public, the researches with such limitations are inadequate and insufficient as evidence to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness of the color mark in question.

Therefore, the court has a reason to believe the JPO did not make an error in denying inherent and acquired distinctiveness of the applied mark and rejecting it based on Article 3(1)(iii) and 3(2) of the Trademark Law.

Based on the foregoing, the court decided to dismiss the entire appeal by Hermes.

Hummel Chevron Position Mark

Hummel Holding AS filed two position marks with the JPO (TM App nos. 2018-133121, 2018-133123) on October 25, 2018. TM App no. 2018-133121 consists of 15 chevron devices positioned in series from shoulder to sleeve (see below left), and designates long-sleeved jackets in class 25. TM App no. 2018-133123 consists of 21 chevron devices positioned in series from waist to hem (see below right), and designates pants and trousers in class 25.

JPO Examination

On May 25, 2022, the JPO examiner rejected both marks based on Article 3(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law by stating that:

In fashion industry, there are plenty of jackets and pants with decorations aiming to enhance aesthetic effect of the goods and attract consumers.  Under the circumstances, relevant consumers at the sight of pants or jackets bearing the position mark would not see it as a source indicator, but as a pattern for decorative or functional indication.

Article 3(1)(vi) is a provision to comprehensively prohibit from registering any mark lacking inherent distinctiveness.

Any trademark to be used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant may be registered, unless the trademark:

(vi)　is in addition to those listed in each of the preceding items, a trademark by which consumers are not able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person.

Hummel Holding AS filed an appeal against the rejection on August 23, 2022 and argued inherent distinctiveness of the position marks.

JPO Appeal Board decision

The Appeal Board found that respective mark would be far from a common or descriptive device as a whole.

In relevant industries, competitors often provide jackets and pants bearing their brand on the same position with the Hummel Chevron mark. If so, consumers are also accustomed to distinguishing a source of the goods by means of devices depicted on the position.

Bearing in mind that the applicant has been extensively and continuously using the position marks on their jackets and pants, presumably the marks have become famous as a source indicator of the applicant among relevant consumers.

Besides, the Board could not find any evidence of a common use of the chevron device on the same position as a decorative or functional indication.

Based on the foregoing, the Board held that relevant consumers would recognize the position marks as a source indicator. If so, the examiner made an error in finding distinctiveness of respective mark. Therefore, the Board disaffirmed the examiner’s rejection and decided in favor of Hummel Holding AS consequently.

Kubota farm tractors

KUBOTA Corporation, established in 1890, a Japanese company manufacturing a wide range of agricultural machines, launched its farm tractors in 1960. According to the allegations, KUBOTA has used an orange color and black-and-orange colors on its farm tractors since 1980. In recent years, the tractors have occupied top market share of around 50% in Japan.

On December 26, 2018, KUBOTA applied for registration of color marks (see below) consisting of an orange color and color combinations (orange and black / orange, black and white) with the JPO in relation to farm tractors of class 12.

JPO rejection

The JPO examiner rejected the applications based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law and found every color mark does not satisfy requirements of Article 3(2) by stating that:

1. Farm tractors with similar color have been distributed by several competitors. Orange color has been commonly used on other agricultural machinery. Under the circumstances, there is no distinctive character to apply and use the applied color(s) on body, front grill, wheels of farm tractors. If so, the color marks are deemed descriptive in relation to the designated goods and shall be rejected based on Article 3(1)(iii).
2. The market research that targeted 589 consumers resulted in approx. 30% of the interviewees answering “KUBOTA”. The result is insufficient to admit the color(s) per se has acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator because more than 30% associated the mark with other competitors in spite that Kubota’s tractors have occupied top market share for long years.
3. In view of the fact that orange corresponds to one of safety colors determined by the Japan Industrial Standards (JIS), there is a high demand to freely use the color in our society.
4. Based on the foregoing, the examiner has no reason to believe the applied color marks have acquired a secondary meaning and played a role in identifying the source of Kubota’s farm tractors by itself.

Dr. Martens’ Yellow Welt Stitch

Airwair International Limited, a UK company, applied a position mark consisting of a yellow stitching around the perimeter of footwear on the outer sole edge (see below) for use on leather shoes and boots in class 25 with the JPO on June 12, 2018 (TM App no. 2018-77608).

Allegedly, first use of the position mark on the Dr. Martens “1460” boots has dated back to 1960 in UK. Leather shoes and boots bearing the yellow welt stitch have been continuously distributed in Japan by the applicant or a local subsidiary (Dr. Martens Japan) via company store (61 shops at present) and major shoes retailers since 1985. Recent annual sales for Dr.  Martens’ shoes in Japan exceed 6 billion Japanese yens and over 460,000 pairs. Airwair has routinely monitored and taken legal actions against lookalikes of shoes bearing the yellow welt stitch and been successful in stopping distribution of following shoes.

According to the brand awareness survey that targeted a total of 1,019 men and women aged from 15 to 59, 30.7% of the interviewees who have purchased leather shoes and boots could answer Dr. Martens at the sight of black leather shoes with the yellow welt stitch and 37.6% selected Dr. Martens from multiple choice.

On August 23, 2022, The JPO Appeal Board decided the yellow stitching of Dr. Martens does not possess its own distinctive character by stating that relevant consumers would not see the stitch as a source indicator, but as a mere decoration. The Board also negated acquired distinctiveness of the position mark based on the fact that a majority of frequent users of the goods in question could not connect the stitch with Dr. Martens. Accordingly, the Board sustained the examiner’s rejection (Appeal case no. 2021-2446).

Airwair filed an appeal against the JPO Appeal Board decision and argued inherent and acquired distinctiveness of the Dr. Martens’ yellow welt stitch in relation to leather shoes and goods.

IP High Court decision

Inherent distinctiveness

The Court paid attention to the circumstance that plenty of leather shoes and boots have been manufactured by means of the Goodyear Welted Method for long years and the thread stitched to attach the upper to the sole has often identical or similar color to the upper and sole. If so, in relation to yellow-colored shoes, a yellow stitch would be anything but distinctive.

Bearing in mind that the applied mark does not specify a color of the upper and the sole, the judge had a view that it is allowed to assess inherent distinctiveness of the position mark in relation to the shoes with a yellow thread, upper and sole and any colors.

Based on the foregoing, the Court found the position mark lacks inherent distinctiveness in relation to leather shoes and boots and shall be unregistrable based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Law.

Acquired distinctiveness

The Court questioned relevance of the brand awareness survey that excluded consumers who had not purchased either leather shoes or boots in the past year. However, by taking account of an expert opinion that points out 15% shall be sufficient to admit distinctiveness of trade dress as a source indicator especially in fashion industry and the survey revealed there were over four times as many interviewees who selected Dr. Martens than Timberland (7.9%) from multiple choice, the judge ruled Dr. Martens’ yellow welt stitch has acquired a certain degree of recognition as a sign that the black leather shoes originate from the Airwair company.

In the meantime, the Court held there is doubt if the position mark would play a role in indicating its source even when used on a yellow or similar colored outsole or welt. As a matter of fact, Airwair has not taken actions against shoes having non-black outsoles and welts.

Given the applied mark does not restrict a color of shoes, a fact that Dr. Martens’ yellow welt stitch has played a role of source indication in relation to black leather shoes and boots is insufficient to find acquired distinctiveness of the appled mark and admit registration under Article 3(2) of the Trademark Law.

Obviously, the Court opens a gate to register Dr. Martens’ yellow welt stitch provided that a position mark consists of yellow stich and black upper and welt.

Louboutin’s Red Soles

Fast on the heels of the introduction to register color marks in Japan, Christian Louboutin filed a trademark application for a color mark consisting of a red (Pantone 18-1663TP) colored in soles (see below) for use on high heels in class 25 on April 1, 2015 (TM App no. 2015-29921).

JPO Rejection

The JPO Appeal Board found the color mark perse lacks distinctiveness in relation to the goods in question by taking into account the fact that a lot of shoes with red-colored soles have been distributed by other shoemakers in Japan.

Besides, under the current trade practice, the Board considered it will inevitably cause a severe disorder and excessive restriction to competitors if it allows registration of a red color that has been freely used in the relevant industry to enhance the aesthetic appearance of shoes. Based on the foregoing, the JPO concluded the color mark shall not be registrable under Article 3(2) as well.

Louboutin brought the case to the IP High Court and appealed to cancel the JPO decision.

IP High Court decision

In the decision, the IP High Court expressed a view that a trademark consisting of a single color shall not be registrable unless it has acquired an extremely high degree of recognition to indicate a specific source as a result of substantial use to the extent that exclusive use of the color would not cause detrimental effect to the public in general.

In this respect, the court affirmed the JPO findings that a lot of heels with red-colored soles have been distributed by other shoemakers in Japan for years and negated the inherent distinctiveness of the red-colored mark.

In the assessment of acquired distinctiveness, the court found the survey that demonstrated 51.6% of the interviewees (3,149 females, aged from 20 to 50) having a domicile in three big cities (Tokyo, Osaka, or Nagoya) was insufficient to find acquired distinctiveness of the red soles among relevant consumers, assuming that the percentage would become lower if the survey targets more females residing in other cities nationwide.

Even if Louboutin’s red soles have become famous among consumers who have a high interest in luxury brands, the Court has no reason to believe that the red colored mark has acquired an extremely high degree of recognition as a source indicator to the extent that general public would tolerate its exclusive use on soles.

Based on the foregoing, the IP High Court affirmed the JPO decision and dismissed entire allegations by Louboutin.

Consequently, Louboutin’s legal challenge was decisively blown off by two IP High Court rulings unless the Supreme Court holds out its hand on Louboutin.