August [Legal] Newsletter

Trends in the number of applications and registrations for "non-traditional trademarks"

The year 2024 marks 10 years since the registration system for new types of trademarks (sound trademarks, motion trademarks, position trademarks, color-only trademarks, and hologram trademarks) was launched in Japan. The Patent Administration Annual Report 2025 Edition summarizes the number of applications and registrations for each trademark type over the 10 years from 2015, when the system was launched, to 2024, so we would like to introduce it to you.

In 2015, when the system was launched, the highest number of applications was for color trademarks alone, at 448, followed by sound trademarks with 365, position trademarks with 243, motion trademarks with 80, and hologram trademarks with 14. For each type of trademark, the number of applications was highest in 2015, the year the system was launched, but fell to more than half the number the following year, in 2016. In particular, while color trademarks alone had the highest number of applications when the system was launched, the number fell to 42 in 2016 and has remained in the single digits since 2019.

In terms of the number of registrations, 2017 saw the highest number of sound trademarks and position trademarks in the past 10 years, while 2016 saw the highest number of motion trademarks and hologram trademarks. Furthermore, there were no registrations of color-only trademarks in 2015 or 2016, and 2017 saw the first registration.

Looking at the overall number of registrations over a 10-year period, there were 374 sound trademarks registered out of 779 applications (a 10-year registration rate of approximately 48%), 175 position trademarks registered out of 645 applications (approximately 27%), 208 motion trademarks registered out of 272 applications (approximately 76%), and 16 hologram trademarks registered out of 21 applications (approximately 76%). On the other hand, there were only 11 color trademarks registered out of 574 applications (approximately 2%), showing an overwhelmingly low registration rate. Since color trademarks are generally not considered distinctive, in order to register them, it is necessary to prove that they have acquired distinctiveness through use. The low number of registrations indicates the high hurdles to registering color trademarks.

Considering the figures for the total number of applications for new-type trademarks in 2024 (95 applications and 50 registrations), it is difficult to say that the number of applications and registrations for these trademark types is large, and it can be said that the utilization of this registration system is limited. The background to this is thought to be the registration requirements that differ from the traditional trademark registration of characters and figures, and the difficulty of dealing with the reasons for refusal that accompanies them.

However, non-traditional trademarks have the potential to make a strong impression on consumers across a variety of media. As the registration of these trademarks progresses and their use as registered trademarks expands, they are expected to play a strategic role in building corporate brands.

The Japan Patent Office prepares and publishes the "2025 Annual Report of the Government Counterfeit and Piracy Countermeasures Countermeasures Desk"

On July 7, 2025, the Japan Patent Office's International Cooperation Division's Overseas Expansion Support Office (the government's general counter for counterfeit and pirated goods) published the "2025 Edition Annual Report of the Government's General Counterfeit and Pirated Goods Countermeasure ...

The summary of the report is as follows:

■ Overview of consultation and information provision reception

• The total number of applications received in 2024 was 1,007, with most applications received via email, accounting for 86.6%.
• Of the total number of cases received in 2024, 798 were information requests and 209 were consultation requests.
• There were 802 consultations and information provided on an item basis related to internet transactions.
• Much of the information provided concerns the sale of counterfeit goods through flea market apps and fraudulent social media advertisements.
• The consultations we receive are often about confirming legal issues regarding how to exercise rights, including in cases overseas, where to apply for import suspension, and introductions to specialized institutions that offer free consultations.

■ Breakdown of consultations received (by country/region where damage occurred, and by product category)

• Of the consultation cases in 2024 for which the country or region of manufacture (origin) is known, Japan and China are equally common on an item basis.
• Among consultation cases in 2024, those for which the product type is clear are, in order of general machinery/industrial machinery, and textiles.

■ Breakdown of consultations and information provided (by intellectual property rights and related laws and regulations)

• Among consultation cases in 2024, the most common types of intellectual property rights that are clearly defined are trademarks and copyrights.
• Among the information provision cases in 2024, the most common categories for which the content of the rights in question is clear are copyright and trademark rights, in that order.

[Reference] Initiatives by the Agency for Cultural Affairs

The Agency for Cultural Affairs is also working to protect copyrights overseas, including measures against piracy, in cooperation with relevant ministries and organizations, and has published the "Handbook for Countermeasures against Copyright Infringement (Piracy) on the Internet." The general section of the handbook outlines "common responses" that are not country-specific, and since it is necessary to implement practical measures to deal with infringement based on the legal systems of each country when implementing "common responses" domestically is not effective, the specific sections investigate and compile the specific legal systems of each country and the enforcement of rights based on those systems.

<Reference URL>
Japan Patent Office "Government Countermeasures Countermeasures Counterfeit Goods and Piracy Countermeasures Office Annual Report 2025 Edition"
https://www.jpo.go.jp/resources/report/mohohin/document/nenji/nenjihoukokugaiou2025.pdf
Agency for Cultural Affairs "Handbook for Countermeasures against Copyright Infringement (Pirated Copies) on the Internet"
https://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/chosakuken/kaizokuban/handbook/seminar.html

"About the Design System in Light of the Development of Generative AI Technology" From the handout of the 20th Design System Subcommittee

In our firm's newsletter, we have introduced the issues being considered by the Design System Subcommittee hosted by the Japan Patent Office, particularly "Design and the Design System in Virtual Space."

This time, we will introduce the issues under consideration regarding "Development of Generative AI Technology and the Design System" from materials distributed at the 20th Design System Subcommittee held on June 30, 2025. This material will give you an idea of the direction that the design system is being considered for future revisions. (The following is an excerpt from "20th Design System Subcommittee Handout 1 (Japan Patent Office)")

Of the six points of contention, namely, (1) design, (2) creator, (3) eligibility of cited design, (4) exceptions to lack of novelty, (5) lack of ease of creation, and (6) description requirements, the direction of future consideration appears to have been organized based on this document for four of the points (1) to (4). The results of the consideration will be discussed at a later date.

①About designs

<Directions for future consideration>
Why not consider whether designs created using generative AI, in which (at least) humans have had substantial involvement in their creation, could qualify as "legal designs"?

<Notes>
We will also continue to consider whether designs created using generative AI, in which humans have no substantial involvement in their creation (including AI-autonomous designs), can be considered "designs under the law."

*"AI autonomous design" refers to a design created using generative AI that is created autonomously by the generative AI (without human involvement in its creation).

②About the creator

<Directions for future consideration>
If we apply the previous concept of creator to designs created using generative AI, should we clarify who can be considered the creator and in what circumstances?
Furthermore, with regard to AI autonomous design, should we consider not recognizing generative AI as a creator?

<Notes>
Regarding AI autonomous design, if generating AI is not recognized as the creator, there is a possibility that a patent application may be filed falsely claiming a specific natural person as the creator (the so-called "misrepresentation problem").

③ Regarding the eligibility of cited designs

<Directions for future consideration>
If designs using AI-generated designs, which can be generated in large quantities relatively easily and at low cost, are cited as examples of reasons for refusal related to novelty and ease of creation, should we conduct further analysis of the impact this would have on the nature of the requirements for novelty and ease of creation?
Since it is difficult to determine after the fact whether something was created using generative AI, shouldn't we consider a response that does not directly require or standardize whether or not generative AI was used?

4. Exceptions to loss of novelty

<Directions for future consideration>
If a third party creates and publishes a design based on the applicant's existing design before filing, for example by using generative AI, should the novelty loss exception be applied? If not, should further consideration be given to whether any measures should be taken?

Newsletter translated into English

Trends in the Filing and Registration of “New Types of Trademarks”

As of 2024, ten years have passed since Japan introduced a registration system for “new types of trademarks,” which include sound marks, motion marks, position marks, color marks (composed solely of colors), and hologram marks. The “Annual Report on Patent Administration 2025 Edition” summarizes the application and registration numbers for each type of trademark over the ten years from 2015, when the system began, to 2024. Below is an overview.

(The above table is a translation of a table found on p.101 of the Annual Report on Patent Administration 2025 Edition).

In 2015, the first year of the system's implementation, the number of applications for color marks was the highest, at 448 applications, followed by sound marks with 365 applications, position marks with 243 applications, motion marks with 80 applications, and hologram marks with 14 applications. Across all categories, the application numbers peaked in 2015, the year the system was introduced, and subsequently dropped by more than half in 2016. Notably, applications for color marks, despite their initial prominence, decreased sharply to 42 applications in 2016, and have remained in single digits since 2019.

Regarding registrations, sound marks and position marks saw their highest numbers occurring in 2017, whereas motion marks and hologram marks reached their peak in 2016. For color marks, there were no registrations in 2015 or 2016, with the first registration in 2017.

Looking at the overall registration numbers over the past decade, there were 779 applications for sound marks, of which 374 were registered (a ten-year registration rate of approximately 48%). There were 645 applications for position marks, with 175 registrations (about 27%), 272 applications for motion marks, with 208 registrations (around 76%), and 21 application for hologram marks, with 16 registrations (approximately 76%). In contrast, there were 574 applications for color marks, but only 11 registrations (a mere 2%). The notably low registration rate for color marks reflects the inherent difficulty in securing their registration. As a general rule, color marks are not considered inherently distinctive, meaning applicants must demonstrate acquired distinctiveness through usage to achieve registration. The low number of registrations underscores the high hurdles involved in registering color marks.

In 2024, there were 95 total applications for all new types of trademarks, with 50 registrations. These figures suggest that the application and registration activity for these trademark categories remains relatively limited, indicating utilization of the registration system. This limited usage may be restricted be attributed to the unique registration requirements and the associated challenges in addressing grounds for refusal, which differ from those for traditional word and design trademarks.

Nevertheless, new types of trademarks have the potential to leave a strong impression on consumers across diverse media platforms. As registrations for these trademarks progress and their utilization as registered marks expands, they are expected to play a strategic role in corporate brand building.

Publication of the Japan Patent Office's “Counterfeit and Piracy Countermeasure Comprehensive Contact Point Annual Report 2025 Edition”

On July 7, 2025, the Overseas Expansion Support Section (Counterfeit and Piracy Countermeasure Comprehensive Contact Point) of the Japan Patent Office (JPO)'s International Cooperation Division released the Counterfeit and Piracy Countermeasure Comprehensive Contact Point Annual Report 2025 Edition. This report consolidates the activities of consultation services and related operations conducted in 2024 into an annual report, based on the “Intellectual Property Promotion Plan 2005” (as determined by the Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters).

Below is an outline of the report:

■ Overview of Consultation and Information Provision Services

• In 2024, a total of 1,007 cases were received, with 86.6% of submissions made via email.
• Of the above total, 798 cases involved information provision, while 209 cases were consultations.
• 802 cases involved issues related to internet transactions (item-based count).
• A significant proportion of information provision cases concerned counterfeit product sales through flea market apps and fraudulent advertisements on social media platforms.
• Common consultation topics included legal issues related to exercising rights (including cases overseas), inquiries about filing applications for import suspension measures, and requests for referrals to specialized agencies offering free consultations.

■ Breakdown of Consultation Cases by Country/Region of Origin and Product Category

• Among consultation cases in 2024 for which the manufacturing (origin) country or region was identified, Japan and China were equally the most frequently mentioned (item-based count).
• Among consultation cases in 2024 for which the type of product was identified, general machinery and industrial machinery ranked highest, followed by textiles (item-based count).

■ Breakdown of Consultation and Information Provision Cases by Intellectual Property Right and Related Legal Provisions

• Among consultation cases in 2024 for which the types of intellectual property rights involved were identified, trademark rights ranked highest, followed by copyrights (item-based count).
• Among information provision cases in 2024 for which the types of rights involved were identified, copyrights ranked highest, followed by trademark rights (item-based count).

[Reference] Efforts by the Agency for Cultural Affairs

The Agency for Cultural Affairs, in collaboration with other governmental agencies and related organizations, is also actively working to protect copyrights overseas and combat piracy. As part of these efforts, the agency has published the Handbook for Countermeasures Against Copyright Infringement (Piracy) on the Internet.

The General Explanations section of the handbook organizes “common approaches” that are not country-specific. In cases where such common approaches within Japan prove ineffective, it highlights the need for practical measures based on each country's legal system. Accordingly, the Detailed Explanations section of the handbook investigates and summarizes specific legal systems of individual countries and the corresponding practices for exercising rights under those systems.

“The Design System in Light of Advances in Generative AI Technology” – from Materials Distributed at the 20th Design System Subcommittee

In previous newsletters, our office has highlighted key issues deliberated by the Design System Subcommittee organized by the Japan Patent Office (JPO), with particular focus on topics such as “Designs in Virtual Spaces and the Design System.” This time, we will introduce the topic of “Advances in Generative AI Technology and the Design System,” based on materials distributed at the 20th Design System Subcommittee held on June 30, 2025. The materials provide insights into potential directions for future amendments to the Design System. (The following is an excerpt from Document 1 of materials distributed at the 20th Design System Subcommittee (JPO)).

Among the six identified points of discussion—(1) design, (2) creator, (3) eligibility of cited designs, (4) exceptions to loss of novelty, (5) non-obviousness, and (6) description requirements—the deliberations outlined in the materials primarily address the first four points (1–4). The findings of these discussions will be reported in future updates.

(1) Regarding Designs

Direction for Future Deliberation
For designs created using generative AI, the proposal is to consider that designs where (at least) humans have substantively contributed to the creative process may qualify as “statutory designs” under the law.

Points to note
Further deliberation is required regarding whether designs created using generative AI without substantive human involvement (including autonomous AI-generated designs) may qualify as “statutory designs” under the law. Note: “autonomous AI-generated designs” refers to designs created using generative AI that are autonomously generated without human involvement in the creative process.

(2) Regarding the Creator

Direction for Future Deliberation
For designs created using generative AI, the deliberation involves organizing the criteria under which someone may be considered a creator, based on traditional concepts of authorship.
Additionally, it is proposed to proceed with the deliberation on the premise that autonomous AI-generated designs should not recognize generative AI as the creator.

Points to note
If generative AI is not recognized as the creator for autonomous AI-generated designs, there is a risk of issues such as falsely claiming to be the creator individuals when filing applications (commonly referred to as “misrepresentation problems”).

(3) Regarding Eligibility of Cited Designs

Direction for Future Deliberation
When designs created using generative AI, which can be generated relatively easily and at low cost in large quantities, are used as prior art in novelty and non-obviousness rejections, further analysis is required to evaluate the impact on the criteria for registration (novelty and non-obviousness).
Since it is challenging to retrospectively determine whether generative AI was utilized in the creation process, it is proposed not to directly incorporate the use of generative AI as part of the requirements or standards for eligibility.

(4) Regarding Exceptions to Loss of Novelty

Direction for Future Deliberation
In cases where a third party uses generative AI to create and publicly disclose designs based on the applicant's existing designs prior to the filing of an application, deliberation is ongoing regarding whether such should fall under the scope of exceptions to loss of novelty. If not, further consideration is required on possible measures to address these situations.