Japan embraces non-traditional marks

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Japan embraces non-traditional marks

In yesterday’s Japan Patent Office (JPO) User’s Meeting, representatives from the JPO provided INTA Annual Meeting registrants with an update on the how the Office is handling non-traditional marks.

The latest amendment to Japan’s Trademark Act allows for the registration of non-traditional marks. Since the new rules came into effect on April 1 this year, the JPO has received applications for 248 color marks, 194 sound marks, 117 position marks, 45 motion marks and three holograms.

The JPO representatives explained that the 607 applications they have received are more than they had originally expected and likely reflect pent-up user demand. The Office has a team especially tasked with examining these marks, but expects that it may take slightly longer to examine these applications, at least initially.

Applicants need to be aware of the specific requirements for each type of mark. For example, applicants for sound marks can provide an audio file for the mark, but the file must be submitted on a CD-R or DVD-R, be in the mp3 format, and must be no larger than five megabytes. Applicants may only submit one file for each mark.

When examined, sound marks will be evaluated for both the sonic elements as well as any lyrical elements.

Similarly, applicants for motion marks may submit a series of pictures that serve as frames showing how the mark moves. The JPO will accept up to 99 frames depicting the mark’s movements. These frames, rather than being evaluated individually, will be considered as a whole mark.

Distinctiveness will be an especially important issue for non-traditional marks. The JPO representatives said that single color and color combination marks are generally considered non-distinctive, although applicants may establish distinctiveness through use. In fact, the JPO has recommended that this may be the likeliest way to secure such a registration.

However, the test will be very stringent. The evidence establishing proof of prior use must be practically identical to the registration; even small differences would likely lead the examiner to find that there was no distinctiveness established by prior use.

As of yesterday, no non-traditional marks have been granted, but the JPO representatives said that they hope to be back next year with an update on how the office is handling these new applications.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Six hires across the IP spectrum reflect Orrick’s efforts to better serve tech clients across the IP lifecycle
David Stone, partner at White & Case, argues that the government’s planned reforms will modernise and futureproof UK design law, but leave two of the thorniest problems unresolved
Max Scott will join the firm’s IP transactions group in California, becoming the latest Weil IP partner to secure their future
Yonatan Drori, attorney at Drori-Stav IP in Israel, explains why foreign counsel must treat Israel’s patent disclosure requirements as an ongoing obligation, rather than a one-off formality
From Japan to Southeast Asia, domestic and regional firms picked up some of the biggest prizes, while key foreign players maintained momentum
Earlier this month, Managing IP had exclusively reported that the French arm of Taylor Wessing was minded to pull out of the deal
Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Gift this article