August [Legal] Newsletter

UK extends ratification of Madrid Protocol to Jersey

Summary of WIPO Notices

On May 12, 2026, the British government deposited a declaration with WIPO extending ratification of the Madrid Protocol to the Jersey jurisdiction. This extension will take effect on August 1, 2026.

From that date onward, the UK designation will no longer extend to Jersey, and applicants will need to designate Jersey separately, independently of the UK. Designating Jersey will require payment of an individual fee and a "declaration of intent to use the trademark." However, a transitional measure will be in place for international registrations with UK designation that are valid as of that date, which will automatically record the designation to Jersey.

Three designation patterns for the home country and its dependent territories, etc.

The application of the Madrid System between the home country and overseas territories/autonomous regions can be broadly categorized into the following three patterns.

① Patterns that are automatically expanded by country of origin.
By simply designating the home country, the effect automatically extends to the surrounding territories.

(Ex)

• France and its overseas departments and territories: Designations made by France automatically extend to Guyana, French Polynesia, Réunion, etc.
• Denmark and Greenland/Faroe Islands: Designated by Denmark, this automatically applies to both Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which are autonomous territories.
• United Kingdom and the Isle of Man/Gibraltar, etc.: Due to the UK's designation, the rules automatically apply not only to England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, but also to the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, etc. (Note: Jersey falls under this pattern until August 1, 2026).

② Patterns that require designation separately from the home country
The designation in the home country is ineffective, and it requires individual designation and payment of fees as an independent territory. The transitional "United Kingdom and Jersey" also falls under this pattern.

(Ex)

• The Netherlands and the Caribbean (Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and the BES Islands): These require separate designation from the European Netherlands.

③ Patterns where the designation is not included in the country of origin and individual designation is not possible.
Although the country is a signatory to the treaty, it excludes certain territories, making it impossible to designate them under the Madrid System.

(Ex)

• China and Hong Kong/Macau: Even if you designate China, protection will not extend to the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau. Furthermore, it is not possible to designate "Hong Kong" or "Macau" individually using the Madrid System, so if you wish to seek protection, you must file an application directly with the local intellectual property office.

Practical considerations

The relationship between the home country and autonomous territories, etc., can change due to legal amendments, etc., so it is necessary to confirm the specific details, such as whether or not transitional measures are in place. In order to prevent any gaps in the protection of rights, please accurately understand which pattern the target region belongs to.

JASRAC publishes guidelines on handling AI-generated works.

The Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC) has launched a special page on its official website regarding AI generation and copyright, and has published guidelines on the handling of works created using artificial intelligence (AI).

The guidelines are summarized below.

■Works subject to management
→For works utilizing AI (artificial intelligence), only works in which human creative contribution is recognized will be subject to management. On the other hand, lyrics or musical compositions autonomously generated by AI based on simple instructions do not constitute copyrighted works and will therefore not be subject to management.

■Regarding the management of works in which either the lyrics or the music are autonomously generated by AI, and the other is created by a human.
→This will be treated the same as works where either the lyrics or the music is in the public domain (PD).

■When submitting a work that utilizes AI
→When submitting a work created using AI, the client has an obligation to guarantee that it is a copyrighted work to which a human creative contribution was made.

Furthermore, regarding the relationship between AI and copyright, the Agency for Cultural Affairs, in response to the need to address concerns about the relationship between generating AI and copyright, compiled a document titled "On the Viewpoint Regarding AI and Copyright" in March 2024 at the Legal System Subcommittee of the Copyright Division of the Council for Cultural Affairs, in order to organize and disseminate its views on generating AI and copyright.

Latest Trends and Countermeasures as Seen in the Japan Patent Office's "Annual Report on Consultation Services for Counterfeit and Piracy Products (2026 Edition)"

In June 2026, the Japan Patent Office published its "Annual Report on Consultation Services for Countermeasures against Counterfeit and Piracy Products (2026 Edition)." This report summarizes the status of consultations and information provision received by the "Government Comprehensive Window for Countermeasures against Counterfeit and Piracy Products" in 2025.

This newsletter summarizes and explains the latest trends in counterfeit product damage as gleaned from the report, as well as key points to keep in mind for future practical work.

Overview of consultation and information provision services

In 2025, a total of 686 consultations and information requests were received, consisting of 563 information requests and 123 consultations. Email accounted for 89.5% of the total submissions, indicating that it has become an established method of accessing the service center.

Internet-related transactions account for approximately 8% of the total.

Of the cases reported to the service center, internet transactions (including online shopping sites, auctions, flea markets, social media, and illegal uploading/downloading) totaled 543 cases, accounting for approximately 80% of the total (by category).

The rise of C2C transactions and social media :
Illegal uploading and downloading (39.6%) is the most common, but there are also many consultations and information requests related to person-to-person (C2C) transactions such as flea market apps (23.6%) and social media (9.2%). In recent years, a notable trend has been the sale of counterfeit goods through listings on flea market apps and fraudulent social media advertisements.

Intellectual property rights and product sectors where damage is particularly significant.

Trends by type of intellectual property right :
In the "consultation" category, trademark rights (45.9%) and copyright (32.2%) accounted for the top positions, while in the "information provision" category, copyright (54.0%) and trademark rights (33.1%) made up the majority. This confirms the current situation where brand misrepresentation (trademark infringement) and unauthorized reproduction of images and content (copyright infringement) are rampant on e-commerce sites and other platforms.

Trends by Product Category :
Of the 44 inquiries where the type of product was clearly defined, general machinery and industrial machinery (29.5%) and general merchandise (29.5%) were the most frequent, followed by textiles (25.0%).

Future practical measures

The distribution of counterfeit goods via the internet is becoming increasingly fragmented and sophisticated, making it difficult for rights holders to monitor and eliminate them on their own. Under these circumstances, the following measures are recommended.

Implementation of multifaceted monitoring :
In addition to monitoring traditional e-commerce sites, we will also incorporate regular investigations into advertising on social media and the flow of goods on flea market apps.

Strengthening border control measures (cooperation with customs) :
To prevent counterfeit goods from entering the country, the government is considering filing an import ban request with the Customs Bureau of the Ministry of Finance.

Utilizing the Government's Integrated Portal :
When considering methods for enforcing rights and countermeasures in cases involving foreign countries, gathering information through the Japan Patent Office's "Government Comprehensive Countermeasures Window for Counterfeit and Piracy Products" and obtaining referrals to specialized organizations are extremely effective.

Combating counterfeit goods is a critical issue directly impacting a company's brand value and economic interests. Determining whether specific rights can be exercised and utilizing legal frameworks requires legal judgment tailored to each individual situation. Our firm specializes in counterfeit goods countermeasures and accepts consultations at any time.

Newsletter translated into English

Extension of United Kingdom's Ratification of Madrid Protocol to Jersey

Summary of the WIPO Notification

On May 12, 2026, the Government of the United Kingdom deposited with WIPO a declaration extending its ratification of the Madrid Protocol to the Bailiwick of Jersey. This extension will take effect on August 1, 2026.

On and after the same date, designations of the United Kingdom will no longer extend to Jersey, and applicants will need to designate Jersey individually and independently from the United Kingdom. When designing Jersey, the payment of an individual fee and a “declaration of intention to use the mark” will be required. For international registrations designating the United Kingdom that are active as of the same date, a transitional measure will be taken under which a designation of Jersey will be automatically recorded.

Three Designation Patterns between a Home Country and its Territories

The applicability of the Madrid System between a home country and its overseas territories, self-governing territories, etc., can be broadly classified into the following three patterns.

(1) Pattern where the protection is automatically extended by designing the home country
By simply designing the home country, the effects automatically extend to the associated territories.

(Examples)

• France and its overseas departments and territories:
  By designing France, the effects automatically extend to French Guiana, French Polynesia, Reunion, etc.
• Denmark and Greenland/the Faroe Islands:
  By designing Denmark, the effects automatically extend to both of the self-governing territories of Greenland and the Faroe Islands.
• The United Kingdom and the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, etc.:
  By designating the United Kingdom, the effects automatically extend not only to England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, but also to the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, etc. (this also applies to Jersey until August 1, 2026).

(2) Pattern where designation must be made separately from the home country
The designation of the home country does not extend the effects to an associated territory, and individual designation and fee payment are required for said territory as an independent territory. Following the transition, this will apply in the case of the United Kingdom and Jersey.

(Examples)

• The Netherlands and the Caribbean territories (Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and the BES islands):
  Individual designations are required separately from the European Netherlands.

(3) Pattern where the territory is not included in the designation of the home country and individual designation is also not possible
Although the home country is a contracting party to the treaty, it excludes specific territories, and designation itself is not possible under the Madrid System.

(Examples)

• China and Hong Kong/Macau:
  Even if China is designated, protection does not extend to the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau. Furthermore, since it is not possible to individually designate Hong Kong or Macau using the Madrid System, it is necessary to file an application directly with the local intellectual property office to seek protection.

Practical Points to Note

Since the relationships between home countries and self-governing territories etc. may change due to legislative amendments or other factors, individual and specific confirmation, such as the presence or absence of transitional measures, is necessary. In order to prevent omissions in rights protection, please accurately understand which pattern the target region falls under.

JASRAC Publishers Guidelines on the Handling of Works Utilizing AI

The Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC) has launched a special page on generative AI and copyright on its official website and published guidelines on the handling of works utilizing artificial intelligence (AI).

The outline of the guidelines is as follows:

■Works Subject to Management
→For works utilizing AI, works in which human creative contribution is recognized will be subject to management. On the other hand, lyrics or musical compositions autonomously generated by AI based on simple instructions do not constitute copyrighted works, and therefore will not be subject to management.

■Management of Works where One of Either Lyrics or Musical Compositions are Autonomously Generated by AI and the Other is Created by a Human
→These works will be treated in the same manner as works where either the lyrics or the musical compositions are in the public domain (PD).

■Filing of Works Utilizing AI
→When filing a work utilizing AI, the trustor themselves has an obligation to guarantee that a human has creatively contributed to the work.

Regarding the relationship between AI and copyright, the Agency for Cultural Affairs also compiled “Approach to AI and Copyright” at the Subdivision on Copyright of the Council for Cultural Affairs' Subcommittee on Legal Matters in March 2024 in order to meet the need for resolving concerns regarding the relationship between generative AI and copyright, and to organize and publicize the approach to generative AI and copyright.

Latest Trends and Measures in JPO's “Annual Report on Consultation Services for Counterfeit and Pirated Goods (2026 Edition)”

In June 2026, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) published the “Annual Report on Consultation Services for Counterfeit and Pirated Goods (2026 Edition)”. This report compiles the status of consultations and information provision received by the “Government Consultation Counter for Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” in 2025.

In this article, we will organize and explain the latest trends in damages caused by counterfeit goods found in the report, as well as key points to keep in mind for future practical operations.

Overview of Consultations and Information Provision Received

In 2025, the total number of consultations and information provisions received was 686. Of these, 563 were information provisions and 123 were consultations. By method of receipt, e-mail accounted for 89.5% of the total, suggesting that it has become established as a means of accessing the consultation counter.

Internet-related Transactions Account for Approximately 80% of the Total

Among the cases received by the consultation counter, those related to internet transactions (the total of e-commerce sites, auctions, flea market apps, social networking services (SNS), and illegal uploading/downloading) amounted to 543 cases on an item basis, accounting for approximately 80% of the total (on an item basis).

Rise of CtoC Transactions and Transactions via SNS:
Although illegal uploading/downloading (39.6%) was the most common, many consultations and information provisions were received related to consumer-to-consumer (CtoC) transactions, such as flea market apps (23.6%) and SNS (9.2%). A characteristic feature in recent years is the conspicuous method of selling counterfeit goods through listings on flea market apps and fraudulent SNS advertisements.

Intellectual Property Rights and Product Fields with Significant Damage

Trends by Intellectual Property Right:
In “consultations”, trademark rights (45.9%) and copyrights (32.2%) ranked highest, and in “information provision”, copyrights (54.0%) and trademark rights (33.1%) accounted for the majority. This supports the current situation where brand faking (trademark infringement) on e-commerce sites and unauthorized reproduction of images/contents (copyright infringement) frequently occur.

Trends by Product Field:
Among the consultations where the type of product was clear (44 cases), general machinery/industrial machinery (29.5%) and miscellaneous goods (29.5%) were the most common at the same rate, followed by textiles (25.0%).

Future Practical Measures

The distribution of counterfeit goods through the internet is becoming smaller in lot size and more sophisticated, and monitoring and elimination by rights holders alone tend to reach their limits. Under these circumstances, it is recommended to take the following measures.

Implementation of Multifaceted Monitoring:
In addition to traditional monitoring of e-commerce sites, periodic investigations into advertisements on SNS and distribution status on flea market apps should be incorporated.

Strengthening of Border Enforcement Measures (Collaboration with Customs):
To prevent the inflow of counterfeit goods into the country, procedures for filing an application for suspension of import with the Customs and Tariff Bureau of the Ministry of Finance (Customs) should be considered.

Utilization of the Government Consultation Counter:
When considering enforcement methods and response measures for overseas cases, it is extremely effective to gather information through the JPO's “Government Consultation Counter for Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” or to receive introductions to specialized organizations.

Countermeasures against counterfeit goods are a crucial issue directly linked to a company's brand value and economic interests. Regarding the feasibility of specific enforcement of rights and the use of systems, legal decisions based on individual circumstances are required. Our office also specializes in counterfeit measures and accepts consultations at any time.