While the examiner found a lack of inherent distinctiveness in the pictogram depicting a claw crane game machine and a player in relation to amusement arcade services, the JPO Appeal Board reversed the rejection, finding that the mark possesses a distinctive character capable of identifying commercial origin.
[Appeal Case No. 2025-11695, decided on June 4, 2026]
The Disputed Mark
TAITO Corporation, a Japanese video game and entertainment company, filed a trademark application for a device mark representing a claw crane game machine and a player (see below) for use in connection with amusement arcade services in Class 41 on May 1, 2024. [TM App. No. 2024-046625]
The mark is currently used at four “TAITO Station” game centers in Japan (located in Tokyo, Hokkaido, and Nagoya).
JPO Examiner’s Rejection
On April 21, 2025, the JPO examiner issued a decision to reject the mark under Article 3(1)(vi) of the Japan Trademark Law.
Article 3(1)(vi) is a catch-all provision that prohibits the registration of 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.
In the refusal, the examiner determined that:
- The applied-for mark would be easily recognized as a simplified, abstract figure of a person playing on a gaming machine.
- Relevant traders and consumers in the amusement arcade service industry would perceive it merely as a “pictogram” indicating amusement/gaming services, rather than a specific commercial origin.
JPO Appeal Board Decision
However, the Appeal Board reversed the examiner’s decision based on the following crucial points:
1. Lack of Industry-Wide Descriptive Use:
While the disputed mark appears to depict a claw crane game machine and a player, it is not a realistic depiction. More importantly, the Board’s ex officio investigation found no evidence that the relevant industry uses this specific mark—or any similar abstract figures of individuals operating machinery—as a standard descriptive tool to indicate the provision of such services.
2. No Evidentiary Basis for Lack of Distinctiveness:
There were no surrounding circumstances or market evidence to suggest that relevant traders and consumers would fail to recognize the disputed mark as a source identifier.
Based on the above findings, the JPO Appeal Board observed that the disputed mark does not solely indicate a “venue to play arcade games.” Instead, it is fully capable of functioning as a distinctive source identifier.
Accordingly, the Board held that the disputed mark does not fall under Article 3(1)(vi) and revoked the examiner’s refusal.