<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Alphacool &#8211; MARKS IP LAW FIRM</title>
	<atom:link href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/tag/alphacool/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://marks-iplaw.jp</link>
	<description>Japanese IP Attorney Firm specializing in Trademarks with a commitment to excellence</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:55:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>ja</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>JPO Found Trademark Squatter Liable for Disobeying Public Order</title>
		<link>https://marks-iplaw.jp/trademark-squatting/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Masaki MIKAMI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2025 09:48:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[2025]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 4(1)(vii)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Famous mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invalidation trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Violation of public order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alphacool]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invalidation trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JAPAN PATENT OFFICE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan Trademark Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark invalidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark squatter]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://marks-iplaw.jp/?p=5264</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In a trademark dispute regarding the validity of TM Reg no. 6680828 “Alphacool,” the Japan Patent Office (JPO) <a class="more-link" href="https://marks-iplaw.jp/trademark-squatting/">Read More ...</a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>In a trademark dispute regarding the validity of TM Reg no. 6680828 “Alphacool,” the Japan Patent Office (JPO) declared invalidation of the contested mark because of disobeying the public order by a trademark squatter. <br>[Invalidation case no. 2025-890027, decided on December 9, 2025]



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-light-green-cyan-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-light-green-cyan-background-color has-background is-style-wide"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Trademark Squatting</strong></h2>



<p>The mark at issue, consisting of the term “Alphacool” in standard character, was filed with the JPO for use on goods in Class 9 on May 16, 2022, by a Chinese individual, and registered on March 15, 2023 [TM Reg no. 6680828].</p>



<p>The applicant filed 80 trademark applications from October 13, 2019, to August 6, 2024. “dyson”, “roomba”, “Xiaomi” are included among them. 48 marks are already registered. However, nine of them are subject to opposition, and seven to invalidation.</p>



<p>On April 21, 2025, Alphacool International GmbH requested the invalidation of TM Reg no. 6680828 “Alphacool” in contravention of <strong>Article 4(1)(vii), (x), (xv), and (xix) of the Japan Trademark Law</strong>.</p>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-light-green-cyan-color has-alpha-channel-opacity has-light-green-cyan-background-color has-background is-style-dots"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>JPO decision</strong></h2>



<p>The JPO invalidation Board observed that the applicant must have knowingly filed a lot of trademarks, including the contested mark used by other business entities. Actual use of the contested mark by the applicant rather suggests that the applicant sought to parasitize the other&#8217;s trademarks with malicious intent to disturb their business or free-ride on the reputation of their marks.</p>



<p>To bolster the above finding, the Board noted the fact that 16 marks out of 48 registered by the applicant are subject to opposition or invalidation actions. The ratio is approximately 33%. According to the JPO annual statistics, the average ratio is 0.5% for registered marks to be opposed or invalidated. Compared to the average ratio, 33% must be extremely high.</p>



<p>Accordingly, the Board found the contested mark should be invalidated based on Article 4(1)(vii) due to the likelihood of disobeying public order.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
