１１月号【法務】ニュースレター

令和8年度 意匠審査の質についてのユーザー評価調査報告書の概要

特許庁は、「令和8年度 意匠審査の質についてのユーザー評価調査報告書」（令和８年９月公表）を取りまとめた。本調査は、令和7年度に特許庁が行った意匠審査全般の質について、出願人や代理人等のユーザーから直接評価および意見を収集し、今後の審査業務の改善に役立てることを目的としている。

意匠審査全般における全体評価

調査報告書によると、令和7年度の意匠審査全般に対する全体評価においては、「普通」以上の評価をしたユーザーの割合が96.2%（昨年度：97.0%）となり、微減したものの依然として大半のユーザーから高い評価を得ている。

前年度調査と比較すると、「満足」「比較的満足」を合わせた上位評価の割合は64.9%（昨年度：62.5%）へと上昇した。一方で、最上位評価である「満足」単体の割合は18.8%（昨年度：24.7%）と低下し、低位評価（比較的不満・不満）の割合が3.8%とわずかに増加（+0.8 pt）した。

高い評価を得た項目

個別項目の中で最も高い評価を得たのは、「面接、電話、メール等における審査官とのコミュニケーション」に関する項目である。本項目は、特許庁が掲げる目標値（上位評価割合70%以上）を大きく上回る結果となった。

• 「普通」以上の評価割合：98.8%
• 上位評価（満足＋比較的満足）割合：94.0%

引き続き優先的に注力すべき項目

各評価項目の平均値分析および全体評価との相関分析に基づき、昨年度に引き続き以下の3項目が「特に注力して取り組むべき項目」として特定されている。

• 判断の均質性（上位評価割合：51.1%）
• 意匠審査官の物品分野等に関する専門知識レベル（上位評価割合：52.8%）
• 拒絶査定の記載の分かりやすさ（上位評価割合：52.2%）

これらの項目は、全体評価に対する影響度が非常に高いにもかかわらず、上位評価割合が50%台前半にとどまっており、ユーザーからさらなる改善が望まれている領域である。

ユーザーからの指摘事項および具体的課題

「判断の均質性」に関する指摘

全体評価への影響度が最も高い「判断の均質性」の評価平均値は3.56（前年度：3.56）と横ばいであり、個別項目の中で最も低い数値となっている。自由記入コメントにおいても「判断の均質性」については肯定・否定の双方が一定数寄せられており、審査官間での判断のばらつきに対する懸念が示されている。

「専門知識レベル」および「拒絶査定の記載」の微減

「専門知識レベル」の上位評価は昨年度の 54.6% から 52.8%（平均値 3.69→3.67）へ、「拒絶査定の記載」の上位評価は昨年度の 52.4% から 52.2%（平均値 3.66→3.63）へと、それぞれわずかに低下が見られた。審査官の専門知識のアップデート、および拒絶理由への反論に対する明確な回答（拒絶査定時の納得性のある記載）が引き続き求められている。

今後の対応策および改善への取り組み

特許庁は、今回の調査結果を踏まえ、特に注力すべき課題である「拒絶査定の記載」、「判断の均質性」、「専門知識レベル」の3項目を中心に、引き続き審査の質の維持・向上に向けた取り組みを真摯に進めるとしている。また、その他の項目（拒絶理由通知等の記載、先行意匠調査、コミュニケーション、国際意匠登録出願）についても、更なる品質向上のための施策を継続的に反映させていく方針であるとしている。

【マドプロ出願】キューバが個別手数料の「二段階納付制度」を撤回へ

キューバ政府のマドリッド協定議定書に基づく共通規則第34規則(3)(a)に基づく通知の撤回

キューバ政府はマドリッド協定議定書に基づく共通規則第34規則(3)(a)に基づく通知を撤回し、２０２６年１１月２０日より新たな個別手数料制度および金額設定を適用する旨がWIPOより発表された。いわゆるマドプロ出願の二段階納付制度を廃止し、一括納付制度へ移行する事となる。

これまでキューバは規則第34規則(3)(a)の規定を利用し、第1段階分と第2段階分の分割納付を認めていたが、今回の通知撤回により、一括納付方式へ一元化されることになった。

概略と変更内容

変更点：個別手数料の支払いが、これまでの「出願時と登録査定後の2段階納付」から「国際登録前の一括納付」へ変更される。

効力発生日：２０２６年１１月２０日

２０２６年１１月１９日まで：出願時（第1段階）と登録査定後（第2段階）に分割して納付する二段階納付方式。

２０２６年１１月２０日以降：出願時（または事後指定時・更新時）に個別手数料が一括で徴収される。

日本における個別手数料制度の変遷

なお、日本においてもかつては2段階納付制度を維持していたが、令和3年改正において、マドリッド協定議定書に基づく共通規則第34規則(3)(a)に基づく通知を撤回している。

大多数の締約国が一括納付制度を採用している事もあり、海外出願人が日本での登録査定後に、第2部分の個別手数料を納付することを失念・放置してしまうという事例が多数発生した。その結果、せっかく登録査定を受けたにもかかわらず、個別手数料の不納により出願が取り下げられたとみなされるという事例が相次いだ。

このような出願人の失念リスクを防止し、国際的な標準手続に合わせるため、日本は令和3年に手続を一括納付に戻し、第34規則(3)(a)の通知を撤回した。

公取委、制作物の著作権をめぐる不当な無償要求の違反例を具体化

公正取引委員会は、２０２６年１０月１日、取適法の運用基準とフリーランス法の「考え方」の改正を公表した。同年６月の知財取引指針を踏まえ、知的財産権の譲渡・利用許諾の範囲や対価の扱いを明確にした。背景には、受注者から知財を無償・安価に提供させる取引への問題意識がある。以下、今回、取適法の運用基準に追加された著作権に関する違反行為事例を二つ紹介する。

一つは、ポスター用のキャラクターデザインを、当初の発注内容に含まれないグッズにも利用する例である。発注者は制作とポスターへの利用許諾の対価を考慮した代金を支払っていたが、グッズへの利用については対価を一切支払わず、結果として発注内容に含まれない知的財産権を無償で提供させた。

もう一つは、プロモーション動画の発注時に著作権譲渡を含むか明確にせず、納品時になって譲渡を要求する例である。受注者が対価の説明を求めても、発注者は当初から含まれていたとして代金の内訳や算定根拠を具体的に説明せず、無償で譲渡させた。これらは「不当な経済上の利益の提供要請」の違反例として示されている。

各法の適用要件を満たす取引では、受注者は自ら訴訟を起こさなくても公取委に違反を申告できる。公取委は調査を行い、違反に対して是正の勧告等を行う。勧告は原則として事業者名・違反内容とともに公表され、フリーランス法では正当な理由なく勧告に従わない場合の命令も設けられている。こうした既存の仕組みを背景に、違反例の具体化は、受注者による問題の指摘や発注者の社内確認を容易にし、不当な要求の抑止につながると考えられる。

■発注時に権利の範囲と対価を確認
著作権の譲渡・利用許諾を発注内容に含める場合は、その範囲を明示し、対価にも反映させることが重要である。権利の対価を制作費と一括で設定することが合理的な場合もあり、必ず別料金とする趣旨ではない。二次利用を予定する場合は、その用途も契約に含まれるか確認したい。今回の改正は、著作権法の改正や新たな制裁の導入ではなく、既存の取引規制の解釈・運用を具体化したものである。

Newsletter translated into English

Overview of the FY2026 User Evaluation Survey Report on Design Examination Quality

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) compiled the “FY2026 User Evaluation Survey Report on Design Examination Quality” (published in September 2026). The purpose of this survey is to collect direct evaluations and opinions from users, such as applicants and representatives, regarding the overall quality of design examinations conducted by the JPO in FY2025, and to utilize these insights for the future improvement of examination practices.

Overall Evaluation of Design Examination as a Whole

According to the survey report, in the overall evaluation of design examinations in FY2025 as a whole, the proportion of users who gave a rating of “Neutral” or higher was 96.2% (previous fiscal year: 97.0%), and although there was a slight decrease, the JPO continues to receive high evaluations from the majority of users. Compared to the previous fiscal year’s survey, the proportion of top-tier evaluations combining “Satisfied” and “Relatively Satisfied” increased to 64.9% (previous fiscal year: 62.5%). On the other hand, the proportion of “Satisfied” alone, which is the highest rating, decreased to 18.8% (previous fiscal year: 24.7%), and the proportion of low-tier evaluations (Relatively Dissatisfied and Dissatisfied) slightly increased to 3.8% (+0.8 pt).

Items Receiving High Evaluations

Among the individual items, the item that received the highest evaluation was “Communication with examiners in interviews, by telephone, by email, etc.” This item significantly exceeded the target value set by the JPO (a top-tier evaluation ratio of 70% or more).

• Ratio of evaluations of “Neutral” or higher: 98.8%
• Ratio of top-tier evaluations (Satisfied + Relatively Satisfied): 94.0%

Items that Should Continue to Receive Priority Attention

Based on the average score analysis of each evaluation item and the correlation analysis with the overall evaluation, the following three items have been identified as “Items to focus on with particular effort,” continuing from the previous fiscal year.

• Consistency of judgments (Top-tier evaluation ratio: 51.1%)
• Level of specialized knowledge of design examiners regarding product fields, etc. (Top-tier evaluation ratio: 52.8%)
• Clarity of the description in decisions of refusal (Top-tier evaluation ratio: 52.2%)

Although these items have a very high degree of influence on the overall evaluation, their top-tier evaluation ratios remain in the lower 50% range, making them areas where further improvements are desired by users.

Points Raised by Users and Specific Issues

Points Regarding “Consistency of Judgments”

The average evaluation score for “Consistency of judgments,” which has the highest degree of influence on the overall evaluation, remained flat at 3.56 (previous fiscal year: 3.56), representing the lowest score among the individual items. Even in the free-text comments, a certain number of both positive and negative opinions were received regarding “Consistency of judgments,” indicating concerns over variations in judgment among examiners.

Slight Decreases in “Specialized Knowledge Level” and “Description in Decisions of Refusal”

A slight decrease was observed in both items: the top-tier evaluation of “Specialized knowledge level” decreased from 54.6% in the previous fiscal year to 52.8% (average score from 3.69 to 3.67), and the top-tier evaluation of “Description in decisions of refusal” decreased from 52.4% in the previous fiscal year to 52.2% (average score from 3.66 to 3.63). Updating examiners’ specialized knowledge and providing clear responses to arguments against reasons for refusal (convincing descriptions at the time of decisions of refusal) continue to be demanded.

Future Countermeasures and Improvement Efforts

Based on these survey results, the JPO states that it will continue to sincerely advance efforts toward maintaining and improving examination quality, focusing mainly on the three items that require special focus: “Description in decisions of refusal,” “Consistency of judgments,” and “Specialized knowledge level.” In addition, regarding other items (descriptions in notices of reasons for refusal, etc., prior design searches, communication, and international design applications), the JPO intends to continuously reflect measures aimed at further quality improvements.

Madrid Protocol Applications: Cuba to Withdraw “Two-Stage Payment System” for Individual Fees

Withdrawal of the Notification under Rule 34(3)(a) of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Protocol by the Government of Cuba

WIPO has announced that the Government of Cuba has withdrawn its notification under Rule 34(3)(a) of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Protocol and will apply a new individual fee system and fee structure starting from November 20, 2026. This means abolishing the so-called two-stage payment system for Madrid Protocol applications and transitioning to a lump-sum payment system. Until now, Cuba permitted split payments divided into a first-stage part and a second-stage part by utilizing the provisions of Rule 34(3)(a); however, with this withdrawal of the notification, the system will be unified into a lump-sum payment system.

Overview and Changes

Changes: Payment of individual fees will change from the conventional “two-stage payment upon filing and following the decision to grant protection” to “lump-sum payment prior to international registration. “

Effective Date: November 20, 2026

Until November 19, 2026: Two-stage payment system where fees are paid separately upon filing (first stage) and following the decision to grant protection (second stage).

On and after November 20, 2026: Individual fees will be collected in a single lump sum at the time of filing (or upon subsequent designation/renewal).

Transition of the Individual Fee System in Japan

In Japan, a two-stage payment system was also previously maintained; however, in the 2021 amendment, Japan withdrew its notification under Rule 34(3)(a) of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Protocol.

As the majority of Contracting Parties adopted the lump-sum payment system, many cases occurred where overseas applicants forgot or neglected to pay the second part of the individual fee after receiving a decision to grant protection in Japan. As a result, there were frequent cases where, despite having successfully received a decision to grant protection, applications were deemed to have been withdrawn due to non-payment of the individual fee.

In order to prevent such risks of oversight by applicants and to align with international standard procedures, Japan returned the procedure to lump-sum payments and withdrew the notification under Rule 34(3)(a) in 2021.

JFTC Clarifies Specific Examples of Violations Regarding Unjust Demands for Free Assignment of Copyrights to Created Works

On October 1, 2026, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) announced revisions to the Operating Standards for the Transaction Optimization Act and the “Approach” to the Freelance Act. Based on the Guidelines on Intellectual Property Transactions issued in June of 2026, the revisions clarified the scope of assignment/licensing of intellectual property rights and the treatment of consideration. The background to these revisions is a concern regarding transactions where contractors are made to provide IP for free or at low prices. Below are two case examples of violations concerning copyright that have been added to the Operating Standards of the Transaction Optimization Act.

In one example, a character design created for a poster was also utilized for merchandise not included in the initial order. Although the ordering party paid a price that considered the creation and the license for use on the poster, it did not pay any consideration for use on the merchandise, and as a result, forced the contractor to provide intellectual property rights not included in the original order for free.

In another example, it was not clarified whether copyright assignment was included when ordering a promotional video, and the assignment was demanded upon delivery. Even when the contractor asked for an explanation regarding consideration, the ordering party did not provide any specific explanation regarding the breakdown of the price or the basis of calculation, claiming that it was included from the beginning, and forced the contractor to assign the copyright for free. These are presented as examples of violations constituting “Requests for Unjust Economic Benefits.”

In transactions that satisfy the requirements for application of each respective act, contractors can report violations to the JFTC without having to initiate a lawsuit themselves. The JFTC conducts investigations and issues recommendations for corrective action against violations. Recommendations are, in principle, made public along with the name of the business entity and details of the violation, and under the Freelance Act, orders can also be issued if a party fails to comply with a recommendation without justifiable grounds. Against the backdrop of these existing mechanisms, specifying concrete violation examples is considered to facilitate the pointing out of issues by contractors and internal reviews by ordering parties, leading to the deterrence of unjust demands.

■ Confirming the Scope of Rights and Consideration at the Time of Ordering
When including the assignment or licensing of copyrights in the scope of an order, it is important to clearly specify the scope and reflect it in the consideration. Setting the consideration for rights together with the production costs in a lump sum may be reasonable in some cases, and the intent is not that it must always be billed as a separate fee. If secondary use is planned, it is advisable to confirm whether such use is also included in the contract. This revision does not constitute an amendment to the Copyright Act or the introduction of new sanctions, but rather clarifies the interpretation and operation of existing transaction regulations.