TOPICS

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) published a revised version of the Examination Guidelines for Trademarks (revised 17th edition) on February 27, 2026. An outline of the revision is provided below.

1. Summary of Revision

(1) It has been clarified that, under the consent system set forth in Article 4(4) of the Trademark Act, “no likelihood of confusion” may apply in the following two situations:

1. • Where there is a control relationship between the applicant and the owner of the cited registered mark, the case is treated as not involving the risk of source confusion.
   • Where the sources of the goods/services covered by the two marks are substantively the same, the case is considered not to involve the risk of source confusion.

Specifically, a new subsection titled “(3) Cases where the existence of a control relationship is treated as pertaining to ‘no likelihood of confusion’” has been added to “4. Regarding the expression ‘no likelihood of confusion’” of the Examination Guidelines concerning Article 4(4), and three scenarios (i)–(iii) are provided as examples (References 1 and 2).

In addition, “(B) Reasons for consideration in determining whether there is no likelihood of confusion based on the claim that the sources of the goods, etc. are substantially identical” was added as a consideration in assessing “no likelihood of confusion” (References 1 and 2).

(2) In accordance with the above revisions, the descriptions regarding the “treatment where a control relationship exists” under Article 4(1)(x) and (xi) have been deleted (References 1 and 2).

The revised Examination Guidelines for Trademarks (revision 17th edition) apply to examinations conducted on or after April 1, 2026 (Reference 2).

2. Background to the Revisions

The revised Trademark Act, effective April 1, 2024, introduced a “consent system.” Under this system, even where a mark falls under Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Act (similar to another person’s registered trademark), registration may be allowed if the applicant has obtained the consent of the owner of the prior registered mark, and there is no likelihood of confusion between the cited registered mark and the subject applied-for mark.

This consent system has been applied, for example, to the following cases:

– No likelihood of confusion was found on the basis that the applicant and the prior registered mark owner were considered effectively distinct in the market, in light of the agreement as well as related circumstances between them.

– No likelihood of confusion was found on the basis that the sources of the relevant goods/services were considered substantively the same, in light of the relationship between the applicant and the prior registered mark owner, or the state of business operation involving them (Reference 3).

However, the previous examination guidelines concerning Article 4(4) did not expressly state that the latter case above may be treated as involving no likelihood of source confusion, nor did it set out concrete criteria. This revision has clarified these points.

That said, even before this revision, where either the applicant or the cited registered mark owner was under the control of the other, the JPO had, on an exceptional basis, found that the refusal ground under Article 4(1)(xi) (similar to another person’s registered trademark) did not apply for reasons such as the low likelihood of confusion (References 2 and 4).

With the establishment of the consent system, the revision clarifies the above practice as cases involving “no likelihood of source confusion,” and deletes descriptions that had been applied on a provisional basis during the transitional period before the consent system was introduced, which is no longer necessary in the revised guidelines concerning Article 4(1)(xi) (References 2 and 4).

A similar (exception) approach had also been applied in the examination guidelines for Article 4(1)(x) (similar to an unregistered well-known mark of another person). However, there were few cases in which this approach was used, so the relevant description has been deleted as it is considered unnecessary to expressly state such an approach in the guidelines (References 2 and 4).

3. Comment

The sources of the goods/services may be substantively the same, or a control relationship may exist between the applicant and the owner of the prior registered mark, when, for example, there is a parent–subsidiary relationship or a sibling relationship within the same corporate group. There is considered to be no substantial likelihood of source confusion in these cases. Now that these circumstances are clarified in the guidelines, use of the consent system will be further facilitated going forward.

It should be noted, however, that whether “the sources of the goods/services are substantively the same” is determined holistically based on various facts. In other words, the relationship between the applicant and the prior mark owner is only one factor. The business operation relating to the goods/services for which the mark is used, how the mark is used, and other relevant conditions of trade will continue to be important considerations.

References

1. • JPO, Examination Guidelines for Trademarks (Revised 17th Edition)
   • JPO, Regarding the Examination Guidelines for Trademarks (Revised 17th Edition)”
   • JPO, IP Subcommittee (Trademark System Subcommittee), 37th Trademark Examination Guidelines Working Group—Distributed Materials”
   • JPO, Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Revisions to the ‘Examination Guidelines for Trademark’ and the JPO’s Responses

Haruaki SANJO