• HOME
  • Announcements
  • Obtaining IP Rights
  • JPO Activities
  • Statistics ⁄ References
  • About JPO
  • FAQs

Home > Laws and Regulations > Other Information > Appeal > JAPAN PATENT OFFICE (JPO) HANTEI (ADVISORY OPINION ON THE TECHNICAL SCOPE OF A PATENTED INVENTION)

Main content starts here.

JAPAN PATENT OFFICE (JPO) HANTEI (ADVISORY OPINION ON THE TECHNICAL SCOPE OF A PATENTED INVENTION)

GUIDELINES FOR EASY HANTEI DEMAND FILING

MAY,1998
APPEALS DEPARTMENT
JPO

CONTENTS

(Note)

Reference to legal provisions are indicated in abbreviated form, i.e. Patent Law Article XX Section XX.

1.Hantei system

 (1) What isHantei ?

(1) The Japan Patent Office, having a high degree of expertise regarding technology, design and goods, will render an officialHantei in a strictly neutral manner regarding whether the subject article falls under the technical scope of the patented invention in question within as soon as three months from the time of filing of theHantei demand.

(Note)

Since the patent right holder may, for the purpose of profit, exclusively manufacture, sell and exploit the patented invention, enforcement of this right will not only affect those in the same industry but will widely affect third parties. Even after lapse of the term of the patent right (20 years after the date of filing of the patent application, 15 years from the date of design registration), the patent right holder may demand damages for infringement that took place during the patent right term.

The following cases may therefore arise:

  • i) A patent right holder wishing to know whether the goods of another party (object of working of invention) fall under the technical scope of the right holder's patented invention (infringement of the registered patent right),
  • ii) A party other than the patent right holder wishing to know, when investing in research and development (R&D) or actually working an invention, whether the object of investment or working falls under the technical scope of another party's patented invention(The party wishes to work the invention without anxiety).

TheHantei system, in which the JPO, which granted the original patent right, renders an official opinion regarding the technical scope (including matters concerning equivalents) of the patented invention, has therefore been provided.

TheHantei system enables prevention of unnecessary patent disputes and is especially useful for venture businesses and small and medium enterprises for whom legal expenses may be burdensome.

(A duplicate of the demand forHantei is delivered to the defendant for the purpose of notification.)

TheHantei system has been established for all areas of industrial property - patents, utility models, designs and trademarks.

  • i) Technical Scope of Patented Invention (Patent Law Subsection 71(1), Patent Law Enforcement Ordinance Section 2, Patent Law Enforcement Rule Section 39 Form 57)
  • ii) Technical Scope of Registered Utility Model (Utility Model Law Section 26)
  • iii) Scope of Registered Design and the Like (Design Law Subsection 25(1))
  • iv) Effect of Trademark Registration (Trademark Law Subsections 28(1) and 68(3))

SinceHantei results have no binding legal affects on defendants or third parties, it neither constitutes an official procedure of an administrative Office nor an exercise of public authority. However, since aHantei is an official opinion of the JPO, the Office that granted the right in question, regarding the technical scope of the patented invention it is equivalent to an expert opinion, is sufficiently respected in society and is an authoritative opinion.

Moreover, in judgement Heisei 6 (1994) (O), 1083, Heisei 10 (1998) 2.24, the Japanese Supreme Court determined that, as a requirement for determining equivalency, it is necessary to determine whether the item in question is identical to publicly-known art at the time of filing of the patent application or could have been easily been made using publicly-known art at the time of filing of the patent application. The JPO, exploiting its capability as the authority carrying out patent examination, renders a decision regarding the scope of equivalency of the patent right upon rendering a decision on the patentability of the item in question as regards the possibility of substitution or ease of substitution.Hantei results contribute greatly to claims of equivalency in court.

(Note) What does "item in question" mean?

In demands forHantei , if a demand has been filed in a case of the defendant actually working or having worked an invention or the patent right holder files a demand without a defendant, the "item in question" means the registered patent right of the demander and is customarily represented by the katakana character "イ."

Item in question is indicated as "item in question"," method in question" , "drawing in question","description in question","design in question" or "trademark in question". When conflicting registrations are involved, the right of the recipient of theHantei notification becomes the item in question. However, this party's right may also be directly indicated by its registration number (patent number).

If the item in question is a drawing, for theHantei procedure to proceed smoothly the parties involved should confirm beforehand the drawing or a document expressing its contents in writing (virtual claim).

Items submitted by the recipient of theHantei notification should be indicated by a character not used by theHantei demander such as "item in question 2."

 (2)Hantei usage

A. Usage ofHantei results

  • (a) Confirmation of patent infringement (continuation or cessation of working)
  • (b) Resolution of conflict by agreement of the parties involved in accordance withHantei results (especially useful for petty disputes)
  • (c) Use in legal proceedings:
    • i) As documentary evidence proving infringement
    • ii) As documentary evidence proving the item in question is an equivalent (evidence regarding the patentability of the item in question)
    • iii) As documentary evidence proving non-existence of cause of action in equitable action for injunction or in common law for claiming damages
  • (d) Indication of patent numbers on goods
  • (e) Use in negotiation for licensing, license agreement or transfer agreement
  • (f) Use as an attachment to an application or information provision document (request of shoreline control of infringing goods) to customs
  • (g) As a document providing the Police with grounds for accusation
  • (h) As a document supporting a demand made to an arbitration institution
  • (i) As evidence in a warning letter or rebuttal against such warnings
  • (j) As a document to support claims of infringement of registered rights or antitrust laws
  • (k) As grounds to demand to the courts the opportunity to state an opinion if a claim seeking provisional injunction is submitted

B. Advantages of theHantei system

  • (a) Results rendered with strict neutrality
  • (b) Reasonable fee of 40,000 yen (paid to the JPO)
  • (c) Speedy rendering of results (as soon as three months from filing of the demand forHantei )
  • (d) Easy procedures (the same as trial examination procedures)

 (3) Eligible parties and time periods forHantei demands

  • A. Eligible parties
    Parties requestingHantei opinions are not required to have legal interest in theHantei result. However, from the perspective of the purpose of the system, the demander must briefly explain their need to demand aHantei opinion in the space for reason in theHantei demand form.
  • B. Eligible time period (Patent Registration Enforcement Regulation Ordinance Section 5)
    The time period in which aHantei opinion may be demanded for patents, utility models, designs and trademarks extends from the date of establishment of the right to 20 years after the registration lapses.

 (4)Hantei demand procedures

Hantei demand procedures are conducted in a fair and deliberate manner similar to trial examination procedures (The currentHantei system was previously called the "Trial examination identifying scope of registration" under the law of Taisho 10 (1935)) and are stipulated in Chapter 2, Sections 2 to 11 of the Patent Law Enforcement Ordinance.

A separateHantei demand must be filed for each item in question.

In theHantei demand the item in question should be described in the greatest possible detail. Also, the publicly-known art (document) closest to the item in question should be described in the greatest possible detail at the time of filing of the patent application.

When a demand forHantei is submitted, a copy of the demand is sent to the defendant if one exists (A copy of the demand is not sent to the defendant if it is considered that the defendant did essentially give a plea or if there is no defendant). This provides the other party with the opportunity to submit a plea within the designated time period of, in principle, thirty days from receipt of the copy of the demand forHantei for parties with domicile in Japan and sixty days for those with domicile outside of Japan. Extension of this designated time period by demand is not possible (Patent Law Enforcement Ordinance Subsection 7(1)).

A copy of the plea shall be sent to the demander of theHantei opinion

(Patent Law Enforcement Ordinance Subsection 7(2)).

After the copy of the plea of the other involved party is sent to the demander of theHantei, trial examination (search and verification of evidence if necessary) begins and aHantei is prepared. If the need arises, submission of refutations (plea rebuttal), second pleas and responses to interrogations may be demanded. For the purpose ofHantei preparation, submission of electronic data such asHantei demands in floppy disk or e-mail format may also be demanded. Care must be taken in filing a demand forHantei since any deficiencies in form may result in rejection of the demand.

 (5) Method ofHantei trial examination and trial examination period

A. Method of trial examination

If a demand forHantei is filed,Hantei is to be conducted by three examiners designated by the Commissioner of the JPO (Patent Law Subsection 71(2), Patent Law Enforcement Ordinance Section 5).

No examiner having a special relationship (grounds for disqualification or evasion) to a specificHantei case shall be appointed to the case for the purpose of fairness. If any impediments arise regarding an examiner after their appointment, the examiner shall be discharged and replaced by a newly appointed examiner (Patent Law Enforcement Ordinance Sections 3 and 4).

One of the appointed examiners shall assume the role of chief examiner (similar to the chief appeal examiner in appeal cases). The chief examiner shall manage all clerical affairs for the case (Patent Law Enforcement Ordinance Section 6)

In principle,Hantei trial examination shall be document based trial examination. However, the chief examiner may conduct oral proceedings in accordance with a demand from the involved parties or ex officio (Patent Law Enforcement Ordinance Sections 8 and ). If specification of the item in question is deemed to require a significant amount of time then the specification procedure shall be carried out with both involved parties in attendance.

The collegial body of examiners may also examine any grounds not raised by the parties involved. In such a case, however, the chief examiner must inform the parties involved of the result of the trial examination and specify a reasonable period of time for the parties to present their opinions in this regard (Patent Law Enforcement Ordinance Section 10).

When theHantei trial examination concludes, a document shall be prepared containing certain items (Hantei demand number, description of the case for whichHantei was demanded, names or corporate names and addresses or domiciles of the parties involved or their representatives, theHantei result and the reason for the result and the completion date of the trial examination) and bearing examiners signatures and seals. The Commissioner of the JPO shall send a certified copy of this document to each party (Patent Law Enforcement Ordinance Section 11).

B. Period of Trial Examination

The period from demand forHantei procedures to sending of theHantei opinion shall be a minimum of three months (three months for cases in which both parties involved have domicile in Japan and there are no defects in formalities, etc.). The period required forHantei will be prolonged to the greater part of the designated time period if either or both of the parties involved have domicile overseas. And/or if there any defects in formalities, etc. a further extension will be necessary.

 (6) Objections toHantei results

No protests againstHantei results may be lodged by any party (according to judicial precedent).

 2. Preparation of written demands forHantei

(1) Written demand forHantei format

A. Patents (Patent Law Subsection 71(3), Patent Law Enforcement Ordinance Section 2, Patent Law Enforcement Rule Section 39 Form 57)

Patent stamp

(non-cancelled)

40, 000 yen

Demand forHantei

(July 1,2002)

Commissioner of the Japan Patent Office

1 Case for whichHantei has been demanded

Case Patent no.○○○○

2 Demander

  • Address:4-5 Higashi 3-chome, Konan-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 233-0001
  • Name:Kazuji Kagawa

3 Agent or representative

  • Address:2-3 Marunouchi 1-chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0001
  • Phone:○○○○
  • Facsimile:○○○○
  • Name:Patent Attorney Jiro Kono (seal)

4. Defendant

  • Address:4-5 Chiba Honcho 3-chome, Chiba-city, Chiba 280-0001
  • Corporate name:Chiba and Co., Ltd.

5. Objective of the demand

To demand aHantei stating that the invention indicated in the drawing in question and its description does not fall under the technical scope of Patent no.○○○○.

6. Reason for demand

  1. Need to demand aHantei
  2. History of the patent
    • Date of filing of patent application May 12, 1993
    • Date of registration of patent right December 28,2001
  3. Description of the patented invention
  4. Description of the invention in question
  5. Technical comparison of the patented invention and the invention in question
  6. Explanation of why the invention in question does not fall under the technical scope of the patented invention
  7. Conclusion

7. Methods of Evidence

8. List of attached documents

  1. Drawing in question and its description
    one original copy of each
    Defendant:two copies of each
  2. Copy of Patent Register
    one copy
    defendant:two copies
  3. Copy of demand forHantei
    two copies
  4. Power of attorney
    one copy

B. Designs

Patent stamp

(non-cancelled)

40,000 yen

Demand forHantei

(July 1,2002)

Commissioner of the Japan Patent Office

1. Case for whichHantei has been demanded

Case Design no○○○○

2. Demander

  • 4-5 Higashi 3-chome, Konan-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 233-0001
  • Corporate name:Shinsho Co., Ltd.
  • Name:Kasuji Kagawa

3. Agent or representative

  • Address: 2-3 Marunouchi 1-chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0001
  • Phone:○○○○
  • Facsimile:○○○○
  • Name:Patent Attorney Jiro Kono (seal)

4. Defendant

  • Address:4-5 Chiba Honcho 3-chome, Chiba-city, Chiba 280-0001
  • Corporate name:Chiba and Co., Ltd.

5. Objective of the demand

To request aHantei stating that the design indicated in the design in question and its description falls under the scope of the registered Design no.○○○○ and designs similar thereto.

6. Reason for demand

  1. Need to demand aHantei
  2. History of the design
  3. Description of the design
  4. Description of the design in question
  5. Comparison of the registered design and the design in question
  6. Explanation of why the design in question falls under the scope of the registered design and designs similar thereto
  7. Conclusion

7. Evidence

  1. Related to proof that the design in question is related to the practice of the other involved party
  2. Related to prior related designs of the registered design

8 List of attached documents

  1. Design in question and its description
    original:one copy of each
    defendant:two copies
  2. Certified copy of the design register
    original:one copy
    defendant:two copies
  3. Prior related designs
    original:one copy
    defendant:two copies
  4. Copy of the demand forHantei
    two copies
  5. Power of attorney
    one copy

C. Trademarks

Patent stamp

(non-cancelled)

40,000 yen

Demand forHantei

(July 1,2002)

Commissioner of the Japan Patent Office

1. Case for whichHantei has been demanded

Case registered Trademark no.○○○○

2. Demander

  • Address:4-5 Higashi 3-chome, Konan-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 233-0001
  • Name:Kazuji Kagawa

3. Agent or representative

  • Address:2-3 Marunouchi 1-chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0001
  • Phone:○○○○
  • Facsimile:○○○○
  • Name:Patent attorney Jiro Kono

4. Defendant

  • Address:4-5 Chiba-cho 3-chome, Chiba-city, Chiba 280-0001
  • Corporate name:Chiba and Co. Ltd.

5. Objective of the demand

To request aHantei stating that the mark in question used for products or services falls under the scope of registered Trademark number○○○○.

6. Reason for demand

  1. Summary of reason to demandHantei
  2. Need to demandHantei
  3. Description of the mark in question
  4. Explanation that the mark in question falls/does not fall under the scope of the registered trademark
  5. Conclusion

7. Evidence

Submission of the first part of the Evidence No.1 or the second part of the Evidence No.2 as proof of the advertisement (mark, product) used by the demander

  1. The first part of Evidence No.1
    The 10th morning edition of __________ newspaper dated December 1,1998
  2. The second part of Evidence No.1
    Page 10 of the above newspaper (full page advertisement)
  3. The first part of Evidence No.2
    Certificate written by a reader of the above newspaper
  4. The second part of Evidence No.2
    Certificate of the above full page advertisement

8.List of attached documents

  1. The first part of Evidence No.1
    original:one copy
    defendant:two copies
  2. The second part of Evidence No.1
  3. The first part of Evidence No.2
    defendant:two copies
  4. The second part of Evidence No.2
    original:one copy
    defendant:two copies
  5. Copy of demand forHantei
    two copies
  6. Power of attorney
    one copy

 (2)Hantei demand preparation advice

A. Form

  • (a) Paper used shall be JIS (Japanese Industrial Standards) A4 size (21cm width by 29.7 cm height) and writing shall be widthwise, not lengthwise. There shall be no ink blots, stains or difficult to read (i.e. light) characters in the document.
  • (b) Top, bottom, left and right margins shall not be less than 2 cm.
  • (c) All characters shall be typed in black ink, clear and not easily erasable.
  • (d) Writing shall be from and bound by the left-hand side.

B. Note

(a) Demands forHantei when there is a defendant should be marked in red in the top right 2 cm. Replies to demands forHantei shall be marked in blue in the same location as above.

(b) The fee for a demand forHantei shall be 40,000 yen for all four industrial property laws (Patent Law Section 195, Fee Ordinance Section 1).

A non-cancelled patent stamp shall be used to pay the fee.

(c) A blank space shall be left between the patent stamp space and the title for the seal of reception. Top, bottom and right margins shall be used as spaces for seals of correction. The left margin shall be used for binding. Seals of correction may not be directly applied to the item corrected.

(d) The title shall be "demand forHantei."

(e) The date of demand forHantei shall be indicated. If the demand is directly submitted to the JPO, the date indicated shall be the date of submission. If the demand is mailed to the JPO, the date indicated shall be the date the demand is deposited at a Post Office.

If the due date has been designated or one wishes to in some manner profit from the period or due date, there should be proof of the date of submission, transmission or deposit at the Post Office. Especially bear in mind the fact that the date of sending of a package paid for separately (not by affixed postage stamps) cannot be proven by the date stamped on the package (the JPO may request submission of a document proving the date of sending).

Depositing a package after the final collection of that day may also complicate proof of the date of sending. The JPO considers the date stamped on the package as proof of the date of sending (Patent Law Section 19).

For any procedure to the JPO for which the due date is stipulated by Patent Law or Patent Law Ordinances, if the procedure is sent by mail the procedure shall come into effect when and if the date of procedure has been proven. (Patent Law Section 19)

(f) The demand forHantei shall be addressed to the Commissioner of the Japan Patent Office. Correspondence regarding any procedure following the request shall be addressed to the Chief Examiner of the Japan Patent Office.

(g) Only the patent number or registration number shall be used to indicate the case for whichHantei has been demanded. No other number, such as the publication number, shall be used.

(h) The address (domicile) of the demander shall be fully and correctly indicated; no part shall be omitted. If there is no banchi (block number) in your address please indicate "no block number." If "no block number" is indicated in your address, it shall be included as part of the address.

(i) The name of the demander shall be the registered name in the toseki (domicile register) for a person and shall be the corporate name registered in the corporate register for a legal entity. If the demander is legal entity, the names of the legal entity and representative shall be indicated. Telephone and facsimile numbers of both should also be indicated. However, if the procedure is to be conducted by an agent, the representative of the legal entity's name, telephone and fax numbers are not required. If a name or corporate name is difficult to read or pronounce, phonetic superscript (furigana) should be provided.

Moreover, if the demander is a right holder the demander's information must correspond to that of the right holder in the register. If the demand does not specify a registered right holder as one of the involved parties, the demand forHantei shall be rejected. If the demander is an exclusive licensee, the demand forHantei shall be accepted since the demander is equivalent to a right holder in current practices.

If changes are demanded for any matters regarding the right holder in the register on the same day the demand forHantei reaches the JPO, any new items in the register shall bear indication explaining the above fact. The same stipulation applies to exclusive licensees.

(j) Appointing as an agent a patent attorney who has ample technical and legal expertise, is in the business of protecting the interests of the demander and enables the JPO to operate smoothly is recommended. Lawyers may also be agents.

The agent must submit his/her power of attorney (document providing proof of authorization). If two or more agents are serving a demander, each will not be valid as an agent unless all agents are indicated and have pressed their seals on the document. Any indication such as "et al." shall have no effect.

Telephone and facsimile numbers of the agents shall also be indicated. One power of attorney may of course be submitted per case, but one may also be submitted covering multiple cases (when general power of attorney is employed). When proof of agent is submitted using general power of attorney, a column titled "general power of attorney number" must be provided in the "list of attached documents" column of documents concerning procedures and this number must be entered.

(k) Indication of the defendant is the same as the demander.

When the defendant is a right holder, the defendant's information must correspond to that which is in the register.

If a demander finds that the information of the defendant is different from the corresponding right holder in the register, if the defendant is a right holder, explanation to such effect in the reason for demand column would be beneficial from the point of view of JPO procedures.

If the demander is a legal entity the representative must be indicated (excluding procedures carried out by agents). However, if the defendant is a legal entity, it may omit indication of the representative.

(l) The "objective of the demand" shall be to request aHantei regarding whether a technical idea (the drawing in question or explanation in question) falls under the technical scope of a patented invention. Please keep in mind that the demand forHantei is not a demand for the JPO to decide whether or not the technical idea falls under the technical scope of a patented invention.

If the right related to the demand is a right for a method but the contents of the drawing in question and their explanation involve a product, the demand forHantei shall be rejected. The demand forHantei would also be withdrawn if the invention related to the demand were a product in the field of electronics but the drawing in question and its explanation contained a product in the chemical field. The same also applies to objects of demand forHantei that fall under the stipulations of Section 32 of the Patent Law (violation of public order and morality).

If the demand forHantei involves a design, theHantei will concern whether the object of the demand falls under the scope of a registered design or similar designs.

When there are similar registered designs, theHantei concerns whether the object of the demand falls under the scope of a similar registered design of a registered design and its similar designs.

Unlike utility models, patents and designs, the object of aHantei for trademarks is the effect of the trademark right (Trademark Law Section 28). Since limiting the objective of theHantei simply to the similarity of trademarks and goods and services would not raise the effectiveness ofHantei in resolving trademark right disputes, Section 28 is understood as a measure also establishing rights to use trademarks by previous use (Trademark Law Section 32) and areas outside the effect of trademark rights (Trademark Law Section 26) as objects ofHantei. As a result, if demanders or other involved parties claim concrete usage modes of trademarks, theHantei itself will be indicated in the grounds forHantei.

When a trademark right holder demands aHantei, "the trademark in question used on product or service ---- by the other interested party falls under the scope of the trademark right of registered Trademark no.○○○○" is written in the objective of the demand. If a party which has received a trademark infringement warning from a trademark right holder demands aHantei, "the trademark in question used on product or service ---- by the demander does not fall under the scope of the trademark right of registered trademark no.○○○○" is written in the objective of the demand.

(m) Grounds for demand (please refer to the following reference item for details)

Grounds for demand contrasts the necessity to demand aHantei, the period from application filing to establishment of the right (numbers of any demands forHantei and case numbers of lawsuits are included), the technical contents of the object of theHantei and the technical contents of the item in question and concretely describes the reasons for filing a demand forHantei.

Also, since a demand forHantei can be filed at any time, when filing it is necessary to sufficiently prepare necessary evidence and describe grounds for demand to the greatest extent possible.

(n) Such items as indication of evidence, purpose of proof and explanation of evidence are included in the methods evidence column. For example, methods of evidence (witnesses, documents, etc.), convenient days to search for evidence, invocation of evidence and cases maintaining the evidence are indicated. As for indication of evidence, in regular documentary evidence the number is indicated as "evidenceKou no.○○" (evidence KenKouno.○○ for material evidence). Explanation of evidence may be added if necessary.

Expert testimony and experiment result certificates may also be submitted. Necessary evidence should be described to the greatest extent possible at the time of filing of the demand forHantei.

(o) In the list of attached documents column, items actually attached, attached at the time of filing or submitted at the time of filing (including copies) should be indicated. Supplementary material shall not be indicated in this column. When citing attached documents of certificates such as power of attorney documents, "citing attachment to document no.○○submitted in Heisei YY" as well as the document name of the attachment to the invoked document and the date of citation shall be exactly written. A copy of the cited document should be attached.

Attached documents larger than A4 shall be bound with the binding (left) side and bottom flush with the tops protruding from the tops of other documents.

(p) Attached documents and materials

- Including demands forHantei, in addition to originals of all documents submission of one copy for trial examination plus one copy for each of the other interested parties is necessary.

If the original is photograph or colored drawing, color copies may be submitted as copies provided they are sufficiently clear.

Also, if there are multiple items in question submission of the necessary number of copies is desirable.

- If the object of theHantei is a patent right, submission of a copy of the register of the patent right is desirable.

- Examples of other attached documents and materials include the originals of the item in question, explanations of the item in question, drawings in question, VTRs on which the item in question is recorded, opinions at the time of examination of the application, warnings, patent gazettes, general power of attorney numbers and documents prepared in any prior negotiation held with the defendant.

 (3) Reply contents

- Claims that there is reason for the registered right to be invalidated or cancelled are not relevant to demand forHantei procedures. For such claims, if necessary a separate trial for invalidation should be demanded.

- If equivalency is claimed regarding patent rights, to indicate that the item in question is not equivalent, when claiming that the item in question is identical to well-known art at the time of filing of the application or that a person skilled in the art could have easily made the item in question evidence to such effect (in documentary evidence theKou number shall be indicated) and the grounds for the claim shall be indicated (entries shall be made and charts showing contrast attached in the same manner as grounds for invalidation and opposition).

- Even the defendant claiming that the right with which theHantei is concerned bears no relation to the item in question cannot be a reason for refusal of the demand forHantei. In other words, since the object of theHantei is the item in question theHantei will indicate whether the item falls under the scope of the right.

 (4) Preparation of grounds forHantei demand

1. Patent and utility model rights (please refer to written examples)

(a) Reasons why a demand forHantei is necessary

- Brief explanation of why a demand forHantei has been filed

The relation between the item in question and the demander (defendant), the relation between the demander and the defendant and the present status of the item in question shall be described.

(b) History such as applications for registration related to the demand forHantei

- History from filing of application to registration of the right (the subject) shall be described in itemized form.

- If past or pending oppositions, appeals for invalidation, appeals for correction and infringement-related lawsuits exist they shall be described. In addition, description of categories (lawsuit, appeal), appeal categories (invalidation, correction, patent infringement, etc.), case numbers (filing number, appeal number), status and history of the right is desirable.

(c) Brief description of the subject

- The scope of the patent/ utility model claim and extracts (gazette page number included) of detailed descriptions of parts required for comparison (fields of industrial use, effects, embodiment, etc.) shall be described in an itemized fashion.

- If there are multiple claims in the specification of the patent right which is the object of theHantei, clarification should be made as to which claim is the object of theHantei.

- For the purpose of easy comparison to the item in question, it is effective to assign numbers (by describing piecemeal) to each constituent feature of the scope of the patent claim. This is especially necessary in claims with long sentences.

- Claims, extracts (gazette page number included) of detailed descriptions of parts necessary for comparison (embodiment), necessary drawings and citations from attached gazettes shall be framed with a red line. Items for which further emphasis is necessary shall be underlined.

- Inserting bracketed numbers next to each drawing part of a claim aids in understanding.

- If there is no number necessary for explanation of drawings, additional numbers may be added with the notice of their necessity.

- When using a gazette for explanatory purposes, the number of the gazette page, line and paragraph should be specified in the description.

- Explanation of technical language used by those skilled in the art as well as explanation of the technical standards at the time of filing of the application may be added if necessary. If interpretation is needed the method of interpretation should be described with the reason.

(d) Explanation of the item in question (this may be attached as a description of the item in question)

a. General notes

- Comparison of the description of the claim of the patented invention to the technical structure of the product of the defendant should be specified in writing to the greatest extent possible (preparation of a hypothetical claim for the item in question). Technical characteristics of the parts corresponding to the structure of the scope of the subject patent claim should be written with the same degree of thoroughness as the scope of the patent claim.

This is especially true for characteristics of product parts on which theHantei is based. When describing these characteristics the parts shall be described separately and numbered in the same manner as a patent claim.

- If necessary, description shall be made using drawings, photographs or the like. If would be effective to assign a mark bearing the name of each part of the photograph, drawing, etc.

- It is desirable to describe each part by such items as composition, function, performance, effect, etc.

- Description should be made using drawings, photographs or the like. It would be effective to assign a mark bearing the name of each part of the photograph, drawing, etc.

- It is effective to specify product names, product numbers, serial numbers, etc. (Submission of real products or catalogs, etc. is advisable.)

- Photographs, drawings and the like are required for general and external views as well as specific parts related to the composition of the invention.

- Description of the item in question shall be done correctly in accordance with the actual item, if available. Description of the item in question according only to one's own interpretation may invite counterarguments from the defendant as well as delay trial. Probability that conflicts will not be resolved by theHantei may therefore increase.

b. Notes by technical field

- Materials having complex structures shall be described using chemical formula.

- Pharmaceutical products shall be specified by the product name acknowledged under the Drugs, Cosmetics and Medical Instruments Act.

- In principle, DNA sequences of biotech related inventions shall be specified. Inventions related to analytical values or limited to materials or manufacturing processes shall be explained in terms of their relation to their respective base sequences.

- Components and amounts shall be clarified for inventions related to compositions of matter. Chemical compounds for which functional descriptions are given shall be compared with concrete chemical compound and function.

- Upon clarifying under what conditions inventions expressed by the parameters of high molecular compounds are measured and analyzed (measuring instruments, conditions of analysis), experiment results falling within the scope of the invention expressed by these parameters shall be indicated.

(Generally speaking, test results obtained by a public laboratory are considered to have strong evidential weight.)

- If the invention concerned involves a production method, similarity of materials and the method used to analyze similarity shall be indicated.

- If operation of equipment concerned is complicated, operational flow charts and VTRs may be attached. It is effective to describe by color the parts and elements of equipment and circuit layout plans with complicated structures. This recommendation, however, is only for general cases. It does not apply to all inventions, such as cases in which both parties have reached agreement on certain points in advance. In such cases points of agreement may not need to be specified in detail.

(e) Comparison of the subject item and the item in question

- Description shall be made by itemization to the greatest extent possible (itemization by similar points, divergent points and claimed items, sub-temization).

- Explanation using a comparison sheet of the subject item and the item in question (material, operation, function and effect for each structural element of the claim) is desirable.

- Explanation shall be made regarding which part of the invention corresponds to which part of the item in question. This shall be done referring to numbered parts of the invention and the item in question.

- Description to such effect shall be made if there is a relationship of superordinate and subordinate concepts where the compared items are the same although their expressions are different.

- Further explanation shall be added if clarification is needed for certain parts.

- Explanation of divergent points shall be in as detailed a manner as possible using evidence if necessary (for example, in the case of simple design items, explaining why such consideration is sustainable using the commonality of precedents, tasks and effects).

- Comparison of usage and effects may be important indirect facts regarding linkage of structures explained piecemeal.

- If any agreement with the other involved party is reached beforehand, description shall be made of hypothetical claims, similar points and divergent points by itemizing points of agreement and point of disagreement. Any document presented at negotiations conducted prior to the demand forHantei may be attached. If the demand forHantei has been presented to the other involved party and the claims of the other involved party have been sufficiently reflected in the demand forHantei using a comparison chart, if agreement of the other involved party is obtained description may be made to the effect that no written reply is necessary (for the purpose of promotion of appeals).

(f) Explanation of the suspicion that the item in question falls under the technical scope of the subject item

When indication is made to the effect that the item in question is equivalent to the technical scope of the subject item, itemized, ordered indication shall be made to the effect that the requirements of the below subclauses 3(3) (i) to (v) have been met. When doing so, for the purpose of indicating that the item in question is not identical to the prior art at the time of filing of the relevant application and not easily conceivable by any person skilled in the art, after indicating prior art documents (documents used in the course of related trials and trial examinations are effective) explanation shall be made to the effect that the hypothetical claim of the item in question is not similar to the prior art not easily conceivable by any person skilled in the art at the time of filing of the relevant application.

(Note) Searches are possible by the bibliography column on the front page of registration gazettes, inspection of application-related documents (or file wrappers) and PATOLIS bibliography inquiries (it may be effective to understand the history of the item concerned through inspection of filed wrappers).

(Reference)

Requirements for Determination of Equivalence (Supreme Court, Heisei 6 (1994) (O) verdict no. 1083, date of verdict:February 24,1998)

Even if parts different from the product in question exist in the structure described in the scope of the patent claim, as products equivalent to the structure described in the scope of the patent claim it is appropriate to define the below products in question as falling under the technical scope of the patented invention:

  • (1) The different part is not an essential part of the patented invention.
  • (2) The product may achieve the objective of the patented invention and has identical function and effect.
  • (3) A person skilled in the art may easily arrive at an idea to replace the above mentioned different part at the time of manufacturing of the product in question.
  • (4) The product in question is not identical with publicly known prior art nor is it easily conceivable by a person skilled in the art at the time of filing of the relevant application.
  • (5) There are no special circumstances for the item in question to be deliberately removed from the scope of the patent claim in application procedures of the subject patented invention.
    - Submission of copies or explanations of documents useful for carrying outHantei is allowed.

(g) Conclusion

Description such as "demand of aHantei identical to the intention of the demand due to the fact that the item in question falls under the technical scope of _____ no.○○○○."

2. Design registration

(a) Necessity for demanding aHantei

Briefly explain the necessity for demanding aHantei.

Describe the relationship between the design in question and the demander (defendant), between the demander and the defendant and the status of the design in question.

(b) History of procedures concerning the subject registered design

The date of filing and the application number and the date and number of registration shall be described.

(c) Description of the subject registered design

The contents of the design shall be described by attaching the application or attached drawings (or copy of design gazette) and making description to such effect.

Also, the elements and combinations of elements (shape, pattern, color) necessary to form the subject registered design shall be concretely described.

If description is carried out by assigning names to each structural component of the subject registered design, a drawing shall be attached showing corresponding parts and names and description shall be made to such effect.

(d) Explanation of the design in question

If the design in question is realized by the defendant, in accordance with the preparation guidelines for photographs substituting drawings at the time of application filing it is desirable that the content of the design be shown by attaching a photograph. If a drawing is prepared it should accurately express the realized design.

Please refer to the above (c) for further explanation.

(e) Comparison of the registered subject design and the design in question Based on the explanation of the subject registered design in the above (c) and the explanation of the design in question in the above (d) explanation shall be made of both common and divergent points of both designs.

It is possible to carry out explanation by inserting sheets comparing drawings showing the forms of each part forming the design.

(f) Explanation to the effect that the design in question falls under the scope of the subject registered design and/or similar designs

Based on explanation of the subject registered design and the design in question, the reason that the design in question falls under the scope of the subject registered design and/or similar designs should be clarified by deeper consideration regarding both common and divergent points of both designs as outlined in the above (e). Claims regarding similarity of both designs shall be described in a separate manner, as shown below.

If well-known relevant prior art exists for the purpose of providing grounds for the claim, bibliographic information (title of publication, date of publication, page number, etc.) to such extent shall be described. Although attachment for reference purposes of the original publication carrying the relevant prior art is desirable, a copy of such publication is acceptable.

If necessary, a design map may be prepared and clarification to that extent shall be made.

3. Trademark registration

The description method of the reason for demand is left to the prerogative of the demander; the demander may describe the reason for demand in a free manner. However, the contents must be clear and well-ordered.

(a) Contraction of the reason for demand forHantei

In the contraction of the reason for demand forHantei, evidence and reasons giving rise to the demand, the trademark which is the object of theHantei (trademark in question) and the goods using that trademark and the subject trademark rights and designated goods (services) related to the demand forHantei shall be arranged in order, assembled in table format and described in such a manner that the entire reason for demand may be easily grasped.

(b) Necessity of demand forHantei

Explain the reason for demand forHantei.

(c) Explanation of the trademark in question

Explain in detail by presenting evidence regarding the trademark in question's form, goods using that trademark, mode of use of attaching the trademark to the good or the good's wrapper, term of use, and geographic region of use.

Explanation of the usage status of the registered trademark may be necessary for the purpose of determining similarity between the registered trademark and the trademark in question.

(d) Explanation to the effect that the trademark in question (does not) fall(s) under the scope of the trademark registration

Explanation regarding similarity shall be made by elements of judgment such as exterior appearance, designation or idea by comparing the registered trademark and the trademark in question.

Explanation shall also be made regarding the similarity of the designated goods and the goods on which the trademark in question are used.

(e) Conclusion

The intention to demand aHantei shall be described in the same manner as the objective of the demand.

 3. Reference Materials

(1) Example of reason for demand

Example 1 (Patent:tire)

1. Necessity of demand forHantei

The patent right holder (Hantei demander○○○○) of the patented tire invention (evidenceKouno. 1) to which this demand forHantei pertains has become aware that ----- Co., the other interested party, has been manufacturing Model 123 tires (product in question) as shown in the description in question and photograph in question.

The demander of thisHantei is party to the infringement litigation stated in postscript②. For the purpose of submission of evidence to the court the demander has therefore requested aHantei from a strictly neutral perspective from the Japan Patent Office, which possesses a high degree of specialized technical knowledge.

2. History of the subject patented invention

Date of filing:January 1,1990 (patent application Heisei 2-000001)

Publication of application:July 1,1991 (publication of patent application Heisei 3-150001)

Notice of reasons for refusal:September 1,1991

Publication of examined application:January 1,1992 (publication of examined application 4-000001)

Patent registration:July 1,1992 (patent registration 1234567)

(refer to the original patent register(evidence no.2)

Request for trial for correction:January 1,1993 (Heisei 5 trial no. 00001) Trial decision:January 1,1994 (correction sustained, final decision)

3. Description of the subject patented invention

Looking at the patent specification and the description of the drawing, the subject patented tire invention is described in patent claim 1 as shown below.

  • (1) A tire having an exterior surface composed of AAA rubber,
  • (2) on said exterior surface grooves with U-shaped cross sections crossed in acute angle with BB are formed,
  • (3) for motor vehicle use.

The subject patented invention has the effect of not easily slipping on snow-covered roads.

4. Explanation of the item in question

If the item in question is described according to the subject patented invention description will be as follows.

  • (a) A tire having external surface (10) composed of AAA rubber,
  • (b) on said external surface (10) grooves (20) having U-shaped cross section and crossed in acute angle with BB (12) are formed,
  • (c) for motor vehicle use.

"External surface" (10) shall mean ----- from the description stated in lines 4 to 6 of the 3rd page of the patent specification (patent gazette (evidence no.○○) page 2 lines 5 to 6).

  • Explanation of a
    In evidence no.○○(pamphlet issued by the other interested party containing the item in question), "has excellent durability and does not easily slip on snow-covered roads due to use of ABC as surface rubber" is stated as a characteristic of Model 123 tires.
  • Also, in evidence no.○○(results obtained from a compositional analysis commissioned by the demander) the composition of the surface material is ABC.
  • Explanation of b
    It is evident that the part marked○ on evidence no. 1 to 5 (photographs of the tire in question taken from every angle) is .... a groove having a semi-circle cross section and crossed BB in an acute angle.
  • Description of c
    Although not the tire in question, in evidence no.○○ (pamphlet issued by the other interested party containing the item in question) there is a picture of a motor vehicle tire with the expression "does not easily slip on snow-covered roads" concerning the item in question. The tire in question may therefore be considered to be a motor vehicle tire.

Moreover, based on socially accepted ideas it is adequate to understand that any tire having such overall shape is for a motor vehicle as shown in evidence no.○○ (picture of the entire item in question) unless specific grounds to the contrary exist.

5. Technical comparison of the subject patented invention and the item in question

Subject patented invention Item in question Coincident

  • 1) AAA rubber a. ABC rubber○
  • 2) Cross with BB (12) at b. Cross with BB(12)△
    acute angle at acute angle
    groove with U-shaped cross groove with semi-circle
    section (20) shaped cross section (20)
  • 3) tire for motor vehicle use c. tire for motor vehicle use that◎
    that does not easily slip on does not easily slip on snowy◎
    snowy roads roads

(note) Perfect matches are shown by◎, partial matches are shown by○,

items having been interpreted are shown by△, and divergent (equivalent) points are shown by×.

Hantei concerning divergent and coincident points

  • 1) and a
    As shown in evidence no.○○, since ABC rubber is a subordinate concept of AAA rubber, this is not a divergent point.
  • 2) and b
    Since a semi-circle is a U-shape there is no essential difference. Even though there is a difference it falls under the scope of equivalency.
  • 3) and c
    Since both are "tires for motor vehicle use" they are within the range of equivalency.

6. Explanation to the effect that the item in question falls under the technical scope of the subject patented invention

As regards 2) and b of the above⑤, explain the point preliminarily argued that the grooves are identical.

- Non-essential parts

The most important part of this invention is that grooves cross at an acute angle with BB for the purpose of not easily slipping on snow-covered roads.

As described in evidence no.○○(argument submitted in the trial examination stage), "grooves cross at an acute angle with BB" contribute largely to the effect of not easily slipping.

The shape of the groove is therefore not an essential part.

- Identical objective/effect

The difference between the U-shaped groove and the semi-circle-shaped groove is only whether there is a straight line at the entrance of the groove. Moreover, the angles of the tangential lines at the entrance of the groove are always at a 90 degree angle to the surface. Accordingly there is no difference in effect caused by the difference in shapes.

Furthermore, the expression "does not easily slip on snow-covered roads" is contained in evidence no.○○(a brochure published by the defendant containing the item in question). This is the same objective and effect as the subject patented invention. Accordingly the item in question has the same objective and effect as the subject patented invention.

- Ease of substitution

Therefore, a person skilled in the art can easily substitute the non-essential parts.

- Ease of conception of the item in question

As clarified by examination, the characteristic point of this patented invention is that "grooves cross with BB at an acute angle." Moreover, before filing of the application related to the subject patented invention there were no documents describing or suggesting "semi-circle-shaped grooves crossing with BB at an acute angle."

The item in question may not therefore be easily conceived from publicly known documents, etc. (in this case, documents cited by the Examination Department are evidences no.○○)

- Consideration of history

No description excluding semi-circle-shaped grooves has been found in the course of examination of the subject patented invention.

As stated above, since the item in question is identical or at least equivalent to the structure set forth in the patent claim of the subject patented invention, the item in question falls under the technical scope of the subject patented invention.

7. Conclusion AHantei is demanded due to the fact that the item in question falls under the technical scope of Patent no. 1234567.

Example 2 (design)

1. The necessity to demand aHantei

The demander of thisHantei (XXXX Co., Ltd.) is the right holder of the registered design for a screwdriver (evidence no. 1, from hereon referred to as the subject registered design) related to theHantei demand. The screwdriver (item in question) pertaining to the design in question (evidence no.2), presently being sold by the other interested party (YYYY Co, Ltd.) infringes the design right of the subject registered design. The demander of thisHantei therefore sent a warning to this effect to the other interested party (evidence no.3) on DD day MM month of YYYY year.

However, the defendant argues that "the item in question does not fall under the scope of the subject registered design and similar designs" and therefore requests aHantei as well.

2. History of procedures concerning this registered design

Date of filing:April 1,1996 (Design Application Heisei 8-000001)

Registration:April 1,1997 (Registration No. 1500000)

3. Description of the subject registered design

The product related to the subject registered design shall be a screwdriver. Its form shall be as follows (please refer to document 1)

  • i) The basic structure of the whole screwdriver consists of a screw shaft (hereinafter referred to as the shaft part) and the grip part. The shaft part is slim and shaped like a long rod with its posterior end embedded and fixed in the anterior end of the grip part. The center back of the grip part shall be an elliptic frustum in which the front end is thinner, the anterior and posterior ends shall be swollen to form overall a gourd shape. Rings shall be distributed around the center part of each swollen area.
  • ii) Its concrete structure is that the extreme end of the shaft is a tool for plus screws, the grip part shall be covered with insulation material in tapered tube shape at the anterior end, the posterior swollen part shall be a quasi-ball shape and the ring parts shall be fan-shaped bands attached to the diameter of each swollen part. The anterior ring part shall have a diamond knurl pattern on its surface except for certain anterior edge parts. The diameter of the posterior ring part and its width shall be the same as the radius of the posterior swollen part and shall show one small perfect circle concave part having smaller diameter than the width of each position corresponding to the posterior ring structure (hereinafter, the concave part of the dish shape) at every position opposite the posterior ring part.

4. Description of the design in question

Omitted (corresponds to the above③)

5. Comparison of the subject registered design and the design in question

  • i) Common points of both designs
    • a) The product pertaining to both designs is a screwdriver.
    • b) The basic structure of the whole screwdriver consists of a screw shaft and the grip part. The shaft part is slim and shaped like a long rod with its posterior end embedded and fixed in the anterior end of the grip part. The center back of the grip part shall be an elliptic frustum in which the anterior end is thinner, the anterior and posterior ends shall be swollen to form overall a gourd shape. Rings shall be distributed around the center part of each swollen area.
    • c) Its concrete structure is that the extreme end of the shaft is a tool for plus screws, the grip part shall be covered with insulation material in tapered tube shape at the anterior end, the posterior swollen part shall be a quasi-ball shape. The rear ring part shall be attached to the large diameter of the posterior swollen part and its width shall be the same as the radius of the posterior swollen part.
  • ii) Divergent points between the designs
    • a) The ring parts are attached to the anterior and posterior swollen parts of the subject registered design, whereas only the posterior ring part exists in the design in question. Instead of the anterior ring part in the subject registered design, two thin lines are laid with a narrow distance between them in the design in question.
    • b) In the subject registered design, two concave parts of the dish shape are placed opposite one another around the posterior ring part to prevent slip. In the design in question, six thin, protruding parts running in the same direction as the shaft are placed with equal spacing between them.

6. Description of reason explaining that the design in question falls under the scope of the subject registered design and similar designs

i) Prior designs related to the subject registered design

Publicly known document 1:

Title of publication " Monthly issue of YYYY year MM month"

Publisher "KKKK Co, Ltd.

Issued DD day MM month YYYY year

Chart --, page

Publicly known document 2 (described in the same manner as above)

Publicly known document 3 (described in the same manner as above)

ii) Main parts of the subject registered design

Based on the above prior related designs, the main creative objective of the design of products of this subject registered design is the structure of the grip. In this subject registered design, the combination of the whole shape of the grip and the form of the rear swollen part grasped when using is the key point.

(iii) Comparison and examination of similarity and difference between the subject registered design and the design in question

The following are the results of comparison of coincident and divergent points of the subject registered design and the design in question.

  • a) The coincident points of both designs concern their basic structure, especially the gourd-shaped complete form that forms the critical part of the subject registered design. The quasi-ball shape of the posterior swollen part and the quasi-wide ring part attached around the large diameter part of the posterior swollen part coincide with those of the design in question.
    This fact should have considerable bearing of the determination of similarity or difference between the two designs.
  • b) The difference between these designs cited in a) is not so distinguishable since the two thin lines with a narrow distance between them of the design in question may be recognized as one ring. This difference does not bear a great influence on the determination of similarity or difference. The divergent point cited in b) concerns an uneven surface on the relevant position to prevent slippage. However, this point is quite conventional in this type of product and is not a critical part of the subject registered design. This point is also not a significant difference and does not bear significant influence on the determination of similarity or difference.
  • c) Upon examining these designs in general view based on the above recognitions and decisions, it must be concluded that the influence of the divergent points of any of these designs on the determination of similarity or difference is weak and does not surpass the value of mere common points. The total influence of these differences will not turn the determination of similarity or difference.

7. Conclusion

A Hantei identical to the intent of this demand is therefore requested since the design in question falls under the scope of the subject registered design and similar designs.

Example 3 (Trademark)

1. Contraction of reason to demandHantei

The subject trademark Mark in question

Registered Trademark no.○○○○

Form○○○ ×××(drawing)

note:mark combining

characters and figures

Product Designated good/class

Class no.○○

Product on which mark is used

○○○,○○○,○○○

○○○

Class no.○○

 

○○○,○○○,○○○

 

History Date of application

Date use began

DD day MM month YY year

DD day MM month YY year

Date of registration

Currently in use

DD day MM month YY year

 

Date gazette issued

 

DD day MM month YY year

 

Reason Since the subject trademark consists of the characters "○○○," the designation "○○○" or the idea "△△△" may come into being.

The mark in question consists of the characters "×××," and as a result may evoke the designation "○○○" or the idea "△△△."

These marks are similar in that they both evoke the designation "○○○"and the idea "△△△."

Moreover, the product (class no.○[○○○,○○○]) pertaining to the subject trademark and the product pertaining to the mark in question are similar products.

2. Necessity to Demand aHantei

The demander of thisHantei is the right holder of the subject registered trademark no.○○○○ (hereinafter the subject trademark). On DD day of MM month of YYYY year, the defendant delivered to the defendant of thisHantei a warning (evidence no. NN) that use of the mark "○○○" on the product "△△△"(evidence no. NN) (hereinafter the emblem in question) constitutes infringement of the trademark registration of the subject trademark.

The demander of this request and the defendant conducted negotiations and reached an agreement to request of the Japan Patent Office, possessing expertise on the scope of effect of the trademark registration of the subject trademark, aHantei from a strictly neutral position and to resolve the dispute based on theHantei.

Accordingly, aHantei is demanded.

3. Description of the Mark in Question

The defendant has been manufacturing and selling the product "△△△" whose mark consists of the characters "×××" and the figure "○○○" at **** in Tokyo since DD day of MM month of YY year (evidence no.○○).

The demander began using the subject trademark for product "○○○,○○○" on DD day of MM month of YY year (evidence no.○○) and is still using it at present. Production and sales volumes, etc. are shown in evidence no.○○ to no.○○). The subject trademark was widely recognized as a mark indicating the product related to the business of the demander among users in prefectures and cities such as Tokyo, ..... as a result of its use by the demander as late as MM month YY year, when the applicant delivered the aforementioned warning.

4. Description that the Mark in Question falls under the Scope of Effect of the Trademark Registration of the Subject Trademark

Since the subject trademark consists of the characters "○○○," the designation "○○○" or the idea "△△△" may come into being.

mark in question consists of the characters "×××," and as a

The result may evoke the designation "○○○" or the idea "△△△."

Even though the outward appearance of these marks is different, since the marks have the designation "○○○" and the idea "△△△" there exists the possibility of confusion as to the origin of the product. The products must therefore be said to be similar. Since the designated product class no.○[○○○,○○○]pertaining to the subject trademark and the product [○○○]used in relation to the mark in question are ....., the products are similar.

As mentioned above, since the mark in question is similar to the subject trademark and the designated products of the subject trademark are similar to those used in relation to the mark in question, the mark in question that the defendant uses for product [○○○]falls under the scope of effect of the trademark registration of the subject trademark no.○○○○.

5. Conclusion

AHantei identical to the intention of this demand is therefore demanded.

 (2)Hantei official gazette

TheHantei results shall be published in their entirety in the Decision Gazette.

(Hantei example)

Reference material 2

schematic diagram of publicly known design 1

front view right side view A-A line cross sectional view

[Last updated 28 June 2002]

Contact Us

Appeals Division,

Japan Patent Office

FAX:+81-3-3581-1961