March [Legal] Newsletter

The Ministry of Finance released the "Status of Enforcement of Customs Law Violations at Customs Offices Nationwide in 2025"

On February 17, 2026, the Ministry of Finance released information on the enforcement status of violations of the Customs Act uncovered by customs offices nationwide at airports, ports, and other locations during the year 2025 (Reiwa 7).

The total amount of illicit drugs (stimulants, cannabis, opium, narcotics, psychotropic drugs and designated substances) seized increased to approximately 3,211 kg (a 15% increase from the previous year), exceeding 3 tons for the first time since 2, the second highest amount ever recorded, and the situation remains extremely serious.

The number of gold bullion seizures decreased to 192 (a 61% decrease), and the amount seized was approximately 425 kg (a 68% decrease).

Regarding intellectual property infringement items, five cases were filed involving the smuggling of 10 dolls infringing trademark rights and 40 pieces of counterfeit foreign currency.

■ Customs crackdown on intellectual property infringement goods
Articles 69-2 and 69-11 of the Customs Act stipulate that intellectual property infringing goods are prohibited from being exported or imported, and customs controls these goods.

- Intellectual property items prohibited from export:
Items that infringe patent rights, utility model rights, design rights, trademark rights, copyrights, neighboring rights, or breeder's rights

- Intellectual property items prohibited from import:
Articles that infringe patent rights, utility model rights, design rights, trademark rights, copyrights, neighboring rights, circuit layout rights, or breeder's rights

Any person who exports or attempts to export, or imports or attempts to import, goods that infringe intellectual property rights will be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than 1000 million yen, or both (Article 108-4, Paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 109, Paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Customs Act).

In addition, goods that infringe intellectual property rights will be confiscated and disposed of by customs (Article 69-2, Paragraph 2, Article 69-11, Paragraph 2, Article 118, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Customs Act).

<Reference URL>
Ministry of Finance website
https://www.mof.go.jp/policy/customs_tariff/trade/safe_society/mitsuyu/cy2025/index.html
Customs website
https://www.customs.go.jp/mizugiwa/chiteki/pages/a_003.htm
https://www.customs.go.jp/mizugiwa/kinshi.htm

Proposed revisions to trademark examination guidelines (scheduled to take effect from April 1, 2026)

At the 38th Trademark Examination Standards Working Group of the Trademark System Subcommittee of the Intellectual Property Division of the Industrial Structure Council, a proposal for revision of the Trademark Examination Standards was discussed, and as a result, it was approved that revisions be made based on the proposed revisions.
The revised trademark examination guidelines are scheduled to come into effect on April 1, 2026.

The planned revisions are as follows:

1. Clarification of how to handle cases where there is a "controlling relationship" between an applicant and a cited trademark owner under the consent system
As part of the consent system under Article 4, Paragraph 4 of the Trademark Act, it is clearly stated that if there is a "controlling relationship" between the applicant and the holder of the cited trademark, it will be treated as if there is no risk of confusion.
The following relationships are clearly defined as "control relationships" here:

• When the cited trademark owner controls the applicant
• When the applicant controls the cited trademark owner
• When the applicant and the cited trademark owner are under the control of the same person

2. Clarification of the handling of cases where the sources are substantially the same under the consent system
The consent system clearly states that if the source of the goods or services related to the applied trademark and the cited trademark is substantially the same, it will be determined that there is no risk of confusion.
In determining whether there is substantial identity, the following specific circumstances are to be taken into consideration comprehensively:

• The relationship between the applicant and the cited trademark owner
• Status of business related to products and services
• Trademark usage
• Actual trading situation, etc.

3. Clarification of relevant examination criteria
In conjunction with the above revision, the following changes will be made:

• The following statement will be deleted from the examination guidelines in Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 11 of the Trademark Act.
  ① How to handle cases where the cited trademark owner states that the designated goods and services are not similar,
  ② Treatment when there is a controlling relationship between the applicant and the cited trademark owner,
• The statement that the treatment of item 11 above (2) shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the examination criteria of Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 10 of the Trademark Act will also be deleted.

These revisions are being made with the aim of making the system easier to use, based on cases that have actually been applied since the consent system was introduced. It is expected that revisions will continue to be made to the trademark examination guidelines to make them clearer and easier to understand as more application cases are accumulated.

Publication of handouts from the 21st Design System Subcommittee (Part 2)

In the previous newsletter (February issue), we looked at one of the three points of discussion, "① Regarding implementation acts," from the materials distributed at the 21st Design System Subcommittee held at the Japan Patent Office on December 15, 2025. This time, we will look at "② Regarding subject matter of protection." Please refer to this material as it will give you an idea of ​​the direction of future revisions to the Design Act.

Requirements for being recognized as a protected subject in virtual space
The object of protection is "images showing the shapes, etc. of virtual objects, etc."

Requirements for "Images showing the shapes of virtual objects, etc."
1. The shape of the virtual object, etc. must have a single three-dimensional shape and be viewable from any viewpoint.
2. Virtual goods, etc. have the intended use and functions of virtual goods, etc.

Opinions at this hearing regarding the subject of protection
(1) Protection of images showing the shapes of virtual objects, etc.
If there are things that are difficult to protect with copyright, such as iconic cars, objects, or buildings that appear in games, one approach would be to protect them with design rights to prevent imitation by third parties. Currently, the virtual space business alone has not achieved significant profits, but we recognize that there has been a need for it over the past few years, and we believe that protecting these things under the Design Act would be useful.

(2) Protection of space
The virtual space itself is created with careful consideration given to its "comfort," as well as its layout and color usage, and there is a need to protect the entire space through design.

(3) Protection of avatars and characters
positive opinion
It may be protected by copyright, but there are calls for protection under both copyright and design law.
cautious theory
From the perspective of the legal structure, I feel that intellectual property protection for characters should be protected through copyright and trademark rights, and that protection through the Design Act, which has developed based on physical objects, is not appropriate.

Future considerations
How to deal with "objects that are difficult to immediately say fall under virtual goods, etc."
For example, this would include simple background objects, parts of space that are not subject to independent trading, etc. If these were broadly included in the scope of protection, it would discourage creators from engaging in creative activities and would place an excessive burden on clearance investigations (investigations into infringement of rights), so careful consideration is required.

Newsletter translated into English

Ministry of Finance Announces “Status of Enforcement in Customs Act Violation Cases at Customs Offices Nationwide in 2025”

On February 17, 2026, the Ministry of Finance announced the status of enforcement in Customs Act violation cases detected by customs offices across the country at airports, seaports, and other locations during the one‑year period of 2025.

The total amount of illicit drugs (meaning stimulants, cannabis, opium, narcotics, psychotropic substances, and designated drugs) seized increased to approximately 3,211 kg (an increase of 15% from the previous year), exceeding three tons for the first time since 2024 and marking the second largest total on record, indicating that the situation remains extremely serious.

The number of gold bullion smuggling cases decreased to 192 cases (a 61% decrease year‑on‑year), and the amount seized decreased to about 425 kg (a 68% decrease).

With respect to intellectual‑property‑infringing goods, five smuggling cases were recruiting ten dolls infringing trademark rights and forty counterfeit foreign currency notes.

Enforcement against intellectual‑property‑infringing goods at customs
Intellectual‑property‑infringing goods are defined under Articles 69‑2 and 69‑11 of the Customs Act as goods prohibited from export and import, and customs authorities enforce this prohibition.

• Intellectual‑property goods for which export is prohibited:
  Goods that infringe a patent right, utility model right, design right, trademark right, copyright, neighboring right, or breeder's right.
• Intellectual‑property goods for which import is prohibited:
  Goods that infringe a patent right, utility model right, design right, trademark right, copyright, neighboring right, layout‑design exploitation right, or breeder's right.

Any person who exports or attempts to export, or imports or attempts to import, intellectual‑property‑infringing goods shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or a fine of not more than ten million yen, or both (Customs Act Articles 108‑4 paragraphs 2 and 3 and Article 109 paragraphs 2 and 3).

In addition, intellectual‑property‑infringing goods shall be confiscated and destroyed by customs (Customs Act Articles 69‑2 paragraph 2, 69‑11 paragraph 2, and 118 paragraphs 1 and 2).

References
Ministry of Finance website:
https://www.mof.go.jp/policy/customs_tariff/trade/safe_society/mitsuyu/cy2025/index.html
Customs website:
https://www.customs.go.jp/mizugiwa/chiteki/pages/a_003.htm
https://www.customs.go.jp/mizugiwa/kinshi.htm

Trademark Examination Guidelines – Proposed Revisions (to be applied from April 1, 2026)

At the 38th Meeting of the Trademark Examination Guidelines Working Group of the Subcommittee on the Trademark System under the Intellectual Property Committee of the Industrial Structure Council, proposed revisions to the Trademark Examination Guidelines were deliberate, and implementation of revisions based on the proposed revisions was approved. The revised Trademark Examination Guidelines are scheduled to be applied from April 1, 2026.

The planned revisions are as follows.

1. Clarification of handling of cases where a “control relationship” exists between the applicant and the cited trademark right holder under the consent system
It will be expressly stated that, under the consent system in Article 4 paragraph 4 of the Trademark Act, in cases where a “control relationship” exists between the applicant and the cited trademark right holder, the marks shall be treated as not likely to cause confusion.
The following relationships will be explicitly defined as constituting “control relationships.”

• Where the cited trademark right holder controls the applicant
• Where the applicant controls the cited trademark right holder
• Where both the applicant and the cited trademark right holder are under the control of the same person

2. Clarification of handling of cases where the origin (source) is substantially identical under the consent system
In the consent system, it will be expressly stated that when goods or services to which the applied‑for trademark and the cited trademark relate have a source that is substantially identical, they shall be regarded as not likely to cause confusion.
In determining this “substantial identity,” the following specific circumstances are to be comprehensively considered:

• The relationship between the applicant and the cited trademark right holder
• The status of business operations regarding the goods or services
• The manner in which the trademarks are used
• The actual conditions of trade, etc.

3. Organization of related examination guidelines
Along with the above revisions, the following amendments will be made.

• The following descriptions will be deleted from the examination guidelines for Article 4 paragraph 1 item (xi) of the Trademark Act:
  1. Handling of cases where the cited trademark right holder asserts that “the designated goods or services are not similar.”
  2. Handling of cases where a control relationship exists between the applicant and the cited trademark right holder.
• Matters applying the handling in description 2 of item (xi) above will also be deleted from the examination guidelines for Article 4 paragraph 1 item (x) of the Trademark Act.

These revisions are intended to make the system easier to use, taking into account actual cases applied since the introduction of the consent system. As further cases accumulate in practice, the guidelines are expected to continue to be revised to become clearer and easier to understand.

References
Japan Patent Office (JPO), “Summary of the 38th Meeting of the Trademark Examination Guidelines Working Group, Subcommittee on the Trademark System, Intellectual Property Committee, Industrial Structure Council”:
https://www.jpo.go.jp/resources/shingikai/sangyo-kouzou/shousai/shohyo_wg/38-gijiyoushi.html
JPO, “Proposed Revisions to the Trademark Examination Guidelines”:
https://www.jpo.go.jp/resources/shingikai/sangyo-kouzou/shousai/shohyo_wg/document/38-shiryou/shiryo01.pdf
JPO, “Minutes of the 37th Meeting of the Trademark Examination Guidelines Working Group, Subcommittee on the Trademark System, Intellectual Property Committee, Industrial Structure Council”:
https://www.jpo.go.jp/resources/shingikai/sangyo-kouzou/shousai/shohyo_wg/document/index/new37_gjiroku.pdf
(Partially extracted and used by our office on February 25, 2026)

Publication of Materials from 21st Design System Subcommittee (Part 2)

In our previous newsletter (February issue), we featured, from the materials distributed at the 21st Design System Subcommittee meeting held at the JPO on December 15, 2025, one of the three discussion points, “(1) Acts of Working.” In this issue, we focus on “(2) Subjects of Protection”. We recommend referring to these materials since they allow us to grasp the direction of potential future revisions of the Design Act.

Requirements for a subject to be recognized as protectable in virtual space
The subject of protection is defined as “an image depicting the shape or the like of a virtual article.”

Requirements for “an image depicting the shape or the like of a virtual article”
1.The shape and the like of the virtual article must have a single three-dimensional form that can be viewed from any arbitrary viewpoint.
2.The virtual article must possess the intended use and function of a virtual article.

Opinions expressed in the hearing on subjects of protection
(1) On the protection of images depicting the shapes and the like of virtual articles
When a subject is difficult to protect under copyright law (for example, if the subject is a symbolic item such as a car, object, or buildings appearing in a game), one course of action may be to protect the object using a design right to prevent imitation by third parties.
Although the virtual space business alone has not yet achieved significant profits, it is recognized that demand has arisen over the past few years, and protection under the Design Act is considered useful.

(2) On the protection of space
Virtual spaces themselves are created with attention to the comfort of the space as well as the layout and use of colors, and there exists a need to protect entire spaces using design rights.

(3) On the protection of avatars and characters
Affirmative opinions:
There is the possibility of protection under copyright law, but there are also voices seeking protection under both copyright law and the Design Act.
Cautious opinions:
From the standpoint of the legislative basis of intellectual property protection for characters, protection is considered appropriate under copyright or trademark law; since the Design Act has been developed on the basis of tangible articles, protection under the Design Act may not be appropriate.

Future issues for discussion
How to handle “subjects that cannot readily be regarded as virtual articles”.
Examples include mere background objects or portions of spaces that are not independent objects of trade. If these are broadly included within the scope of protection, it may discourage creators' activities and impose an excessive burden on clearance searches (infringement investigations); hence, sufficient consideration is required.

Source
“Regarding Issues for Discussion on the Design System” (Japan Patent Office):
https://www.jpo.go.jp/resources/shingikai/sangyo-kouzou/shousai/isho_shoi/document/21-shiryou/03_shiryo-1.pdf
(Accessed on February 24, 2026. This article was produced by our firm based on the above source.)