![\"franck-miura\"](\"https:\/\/www.darts-ip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/franck-miura-02.jpg\")
\u00a0(\u201cFrank Miura\u201d in Japanese), parodying the luxury FRANCK MULLER watches (Darts-ip Ref.: ![\"parody-001\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/blog-ja-parody-001-1024x405-1.jpg\")
<\/div>\n![\"SHI-SA\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/20190801-01-shisa.png\")
![\"PUMA\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/20190801-02-puma.png\")
\nPUMA with a jumping cat figure (\u201cPuma mark\u201d)
\n(Reg. No. 3324304\uff09<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nFor your information, SHI-SA is a Japanese traditional lion-dog statue, placed on top of roofs or at the entrances to homes, as talisman from evil. It can be seen everywhere in Okinawa Island of Japan.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"shi-sa\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/shi-sa-01.png\")
<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
The JPO held, on July 7, 2017, that the Mark is not liable to damage the public order or morality predetermined under the Trademark Act on the grounds that that\u00a0the Mark is not used for unfair purposes for the following reasons:<\/p>\n
- \n
- The Mark and PUMA mark are not similar to each other in appearance, sound, and concept<\/li>\n
- There is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks even when they are used for the same or related goods.<\/li>\n
- There is no persuasive evidence of free-riding.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Although Puma SE showed that 37.6 percent surveyed consumers associated the SHI-SA figurative mark (without letters) shown below with Puma brand, the JPO pointed out that such evidence does not support the Puma\u2019s claims because the mark used in the survey, which is not identical to the Mark, is irrelevant to this case (Darts-ip Ref.: darts-051-961-E-ja<\/a>).<\/p>\n
![\"shi-sa-02\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/20190801-03.png\")
<\/div>\nPuma SE, then filed an appeal to cancel the decision by the JPO; however, the IP High Court upheld, on March 26, 2019, the administrative decision. As the result, the registration of the Mark is still in force.<\/p>\n
Prior to this case, the JPO cancelled the Mark on the basis of mark similarity (Article 4-1-11) in an opposition filed by Puma\u00a0SE, but the IP High Court cancelled the administrative decision after an appeal by the Marks\u2019 owner. The JPO then re-examined and cancelled the Mark again on the basis of mark similarity (Article 4-1-11), likelihood of confusion (Article 4-1-15) and unfair purposes (Article 4-1-19). However, the second JPO decision was also cancelled by the IP High Court. Finally, the JPO held, on October 4, 2010, that the Mark is not illegal in any regard and should not be cancelled. (Darts-ip Ref.: darts-985-294-A-ja<\/a>\uff09<\/p>\n
Turning to this case, the point at issue here is whether the Mark damages public order and morality by using the Mark for unfair purposes (Article 4-1-7). Though Puma SE claimed that mark similarity is not required when applying Article 4-1-7 (Damage\u00a0to public order or morality), the IP High Court pointed out that\u00a0the similarity between the Mark and PUMA mark is presupposed of free-riding, dilution and\/or impairment to the famous mark\u2019s distinctiveness.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Implications and Comments<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n
This case suggests that, under the Japanese Trademark Act, the similarity of a disputed mark and a famous mark is essential to prove that a trademark parody is created and used for unfair purposes. In Japanese Trademark cases, more focus is placed on mark similarity than whether a parody or not. Also, it would be difficult to show free-riding on the goodwill of a famous mark without sufficient and persuasive evidence.<\/p>\n
For your reference, in the \u201cFrank Miura\u201d trademark parody case (Darts-ip Ref.: darts-346-866-D-ja<\/a>), mentioned above, the IP High Court stated that whether a mark is a parody or not has no direct bearing in determining a likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
R<\/b><\/strong>elated Cases<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n
In relation to the PUMA mark, the registration of the KUMA<\/b><\/strong>\u00a0(meaning \u201cbear\u201d in Japanese) with a bear figure shown below was cancelled by the IP High Court. (Darts-ip Ref.: darts-282-052-B-ja<\/a>).<\/p>\n
![\"KUMA\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/20190801-04-kuma.png\")
<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
\nThe previous owner of the KUMA mark also filed applications for the following marks considered to be parodies of the PUMA mark: BUTA (meaning \u201cpig\u201d in Japanese) with a pig figure and UUMA (UMA meaning \u201chorse\u201d in Japanese) with a horse figure. Further, the\u00a0advertising phrases on the website providing goods bearing the KUMA mark includes\u00a0\u201cPUMA transforms into KUMA, BUTA and UUMA\u201d.<\/p>\n
![\"BUTA-UUMA\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/blog-ja-buta-uuma-1024x270-1.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n<\/p>\n
The IP High Court found that it is liable to damage the public order and morality (Article 4-1-7) on the basis of the substantial similarity in overall appearance between the KUMA and PUMA marks as well as likelihood of dilution and the intention of free-riding.<\/p>\n
As summarized in the table below, there are actually four more related cases of SHI-SA vs. PUMA marks. Note that, IP High Court held that the registrations of SHI-SA figurative marks (without letters) should be invalidated on the basis of likelihood of confusion between the two marks.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
![\"\uff08\u767b\u9332\u7b2c5040036\u53f7\uff09\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/20190801-table-001.png\")
<\/div>\n![\"\uff08\u767b\u9332\u7b2c5392941\u53f7\uff09\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/20190801-table-002.png\")
<\/div>\n![\"\uff08\u767b\u9332\u7b2c5392942\u53f7\uff09\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/20190801-table-003.png\")
<\/div>\n![\"\uff08\u767b\u9332\u7b2c5392943\u53f7\uff09\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/20190801-table-004.png\")
<\/div>\n![\"\uff08\u767b\u9332\u7b2c5392944\u53f7\uff09\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/20190801-table-005.png\")
<\/div>\n![\"\uff08\u767b\u9332\u7b2c3324304\u53f7\uff09\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/20190801-table-006.png\")
<\/div>\n![\"\uff08\u767b\u9332\u7b2c4637003\u53f7\uff09\"](\"http:\/\/clarivate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/08\/20190801-table-007.png\")
<\/div>\n