Bridging IP and ADR between Europe and Asia: insights for Japanese businesses

Japanese companies have long been global leaders in technology, innovation, and brand development. As their businesses expand into new regions, safeguarding intellectual property (IP) and resolving disputes efficiently become critical. Europe – home to diverse markets, sophisticated consumers, and evolving legal systems – has emerged as a key destination for Japanese firms. From automotive and electronics to fashion, pharmaceuticals, and digital platforms, Japanese enterprises increasingly seek to protect and enforce their IP across the EU.

Yet the European IP landscape is complex. It combines harmonised EU-wide rights with national systems, while dispute resolution can take place in courts or through alternative methods such as arbitration and mediation. For Japanese in-house counsel, this dual complexity – both legal and cultural – creates challenges but also opportunities.

This article explores practical considerations for Japanese businesses when navigating IP and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in Europe. Drawing on the experience of IP Work, a boutique practice based in Greece with a strong cross-border focus, it highlights the systems, strategies, and trends that matter most to Japanese stakeholders.

The EU is unique in offering both supranational IP rights and national protections. For Japanese businesses, understanding this duality is essential.

The EU is the world’s largest single-market economy in terms of population, with a massive consumer base totalling 450 million inhabitants (110 million more than the US), offering across-the-board freedom of movement, standardisation on laws and regulations, and a powerhouse for growth and innovation. As the EU is home to 26 million businesses, and has a GDP of €18 trillion, it is a safe and rewarding option for investing in a stable and open market with growth potential for Japanese businesses both on B2C and B2B levels.

The EUIPO grants EU trademarks and designs, providing protection across all 27 member states through a single application. This system is attractive for launching products or franchises in multiple local markets within the EU and coexists with national trademark systems. Notably, local systems may be strategically preferable in certain cases (for example, to safeguard local brand variations or block competing filings).

It is noteworthy that rulings on EU trademarks within the EUIPO framework are decisive on all 27 member states’ national trademark courts. As such, it is worth keeping track of developments; including the following (from 2024–25), with practitioner points on each one:

• Morality/scandalous marks (‘Covidiot’, EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal (GBoA), Case R-260/2021-G, May 2024) – the GBoA upheld refusal under Article 7(1)(f) of the EU Trademark Regulation (morality/public policy). The decision frames how freedom of expression is weighed in trademark proceedings post-Fack Ju Göhte and confirms that widespread debate does not neutralise offence for a substantial part of the relevant public. Practitioner point: expect closer scrutiny of neologisms tied to sensitive public events.

• Conversion and finality of decisions (EUIPO GBoA reasoned opinion, Case R-497/2024-G, October 2024) – this opinion clarifies that an EUIPO decision is not final until the appeal period expires, which impacts conversion timing and strategy when moving from EU trademark to national filings. Practitioner point: docketing and conversion playbooks may need updating.

• Face as a trademark (EUIPO GBoA interim decision after a referral by the Second Board of Appeal, Case R-50/2024-2, October 2024) – ongoing reference on the registrability of a person’s facial depiction raises fresh guidance on personality rights, distinctiveness, and public interest. Practitioner point: watch for new criteria on face marks (consent, scope, and conflict with personality rights).

• City symbols and bad faith (Verona iconic emblem, EUIPO Board of Appeal, Case R-2061/2023-2, December 2024) – registration of a well-known municipal symbol invalidated for bad faith. No monopolising of civic emblems to free-ride on goodwill. Practitioner point: expect quicker invalidity for public emblems and heritage signs even without registered prior rights.

• Bad faith trendline (‘La Irlandesa’, ‘Sandokan’, EUIPO Board of Appeal, Case R-1499/2016-G and T-47/24, respectively) – EUIPO summaries (e.g., La Irlandesa, Sandokan) emphasise objective circumstances (prior dealings, blockage intent) over subjective motive. Practitioner point: gather contemporaneous documents (emails, orders, distributor agreements) to prove/defend against bad faith.

Unlike trademarks, patents have traditionally remained fragmented, generally requiring filings in individual countries or via the EPO designating multiple states. The recent launch of the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) marks a turning point that promises to change the patent landscape in Europe. Japanese companies in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and high-tech industries should closely monitor the UPC’s evolving case law, as it will set precedents for cross-border patent enforcement and revocation.

While currently in a seven-year transitional period, still sharing jurisdiction in some cases with national courts until the opt-in or opt-out time limit kicks in, the UPC has already offered some very interesting case law. The cases have highlighting the importance of having a centralised and specialised patent court for unique IP rights such as patents, which, unlike trademarks, always have a visible expiry date.

The following are highlights from UPC patent case law from 2024–25, with practitioner points on each one:

• 10x Genomics v NanoString (UPC Court of Appeal (CoA), February 2024) – the first major CoA merits ruling on preliminary injunctions (PIs). The Munich Lower Division’s injunction was overturned, meaning an applicant must show a “sufficient degree of certainty” on validity and infringement. The decision underscores Article 69 of the European Patent Convention on the centrality of claim construction. Practitioner point: bring robust validity evidence at the PI stage; expert testimony will not be sufficient to substitute clear claim analysis.

• Ortovox v Mammut (UPC CoA, September 2024) – the CoA affirmed an ex parte PI from the Düsseldorf Lower Division and signalled it will uphold swift injunctive relief where urgency and the prima facie case are strong (despite protective letter practice). Practitioner point: protective letters must be substantive and timely to avoid ex parte measures.

• Public access to pleadings (Rule 262.1(b)) of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court; Stadapharm GMBH v Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG, Accord Healthcare B.V., April 2025) – the CoA set criteria for third-party access. The purpose of the request matters more than the requester’s identity, with transparency balanced against confidentiality. Practitioner point: plan redactions early and expect more successful targeted access requests.

• Language of proceedings orders (UPC CoA orders, Apple Inc. et al. v Ona Patents SL, August 2024) – courts increasingly favour switching to the patent language (often English), especially to avoid unfairness to SMEs. Practitioner point: defendants should actively seek language change under Article 49(5) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court.

• Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (UPC local division and CoA, 2024–25) – a string of wins for the patentee, with injunctions granted and the CoA addressing suspensive effect and third-party/public health interests. Practitioner point: public interest defences face a high bar; settlements can be court-enforceable and equivalently powerful to an injunction.

• Claim construction is the court’s job (UPC CoA, Insulet Corporation v EOFlow Co., Ltd., April 2025) – the UPC stresses independent judicial claim interpretation. Experts assist but do not control scope. Practitioner point: centre your briefs on intrinsic evidence and treat expert reports as supporting actors.

Copyright in the EU is governed by directives ensuring a baseline of harmonisation. This is relevant for Japanese media, gaming, and technology firms distributing digital content in Europe. The Digital Single Market Directive, for instance, reshapes platform liability for copyright infringement – an area that Japanese digital platforms must address.

The EU Trade Secrets Directive, implemented into national laws, provides harmonised protection for confidential business information. For Japanese companies entering joint ventures, R&D collaborations, or technology licensing in Europe, safeguarding know-how through trade secrets law is as important as formal IP registrations.

Many Japanese consumer brands, particularly in food and retail, expand into Europe via franchising. This model depends on trademarks, know-how, advertising rights, and contractual safeguards. Understanding EU and national rules on unfair competition and advertising is crucial to maintaining brand reputation.

The EU is at the forefront of regulating AI. The AI Act, adopted in 2024, introduces obligations for developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems. Japanese technology companies offering AI solutions in Europe should prepare for compliance requirements and consider how AI-generated works fit into existing IP frameworks.

Litigation in Europe can be lengthy, expensive, and jurisdictionally fragmented. For Japanese businesses accustomed to efficiency and predictability, ADR mechanisms offer significant advantages.

Arbitration allows parties to choose neutral venues, expert arbitrators, and confidential proceedings. There are several ADR administration organisations that manage cross-border IP arbitrations. For disputes involving licensing, R&D collaborations, or franchising, arbitration clauses provide flexibility and enforceability under the New York Convention.

Mediation is increasingly encouraged by European courts and institutions. It allows parties to preserve business relationships while resolving disputes creatively. Japanese companies, which often value long-term partnerships, may find mediation especially suitable. Institutions such as the EUIPO and WIPO actively promote mediation in trademark and domain name disputes.

Cybersquatting remains a concern for Japanese brands expanding internationally. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and similar ADR mechanisms provide fast, low-cost remedies for abusive registrations. Having experienced counsel familiar with the UDRP and European domain name extensions (.eu, national country code top-level domains) is essential.

For Japanese businesses, ADR minimises the unpredictability of navigating multiple court systems, reduces cost, and secures neutrality. It also ensures confidentiality – vital for protecting trade secrets or sensitive negotiations.

Although Japan and Greece are geographically distant, Greece offers a strategic bridge to the European legal and commercial landscape.

Located at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, Greece is an EU and eurozone member, subject to EU IP legislation and harmonised rules. This makes it a reliable jurisdiction for Japanese companies entering the wider European market.

Boutique practices such as IP Work are accustomed to handling multi-jurisdictional issues – whether coordinating EU trademark filings, enforcing rights across several states, or representing clients in ADR and litigation with international dimensions.

The intersection of technology and IP law is particularly relevant to Japanese innovators.

Europe is pioneering legal debates around AI-generated works, inventorship, and accountability. Japanese companies exporting AI solutions to Europe must prepare for regulatory obligations under the AI Act and uncertainty about the IP protection of AI-created assets.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) remains a benchmark in global data protection. Japanese companies collecting or processing personal data in Europe must comply with the GDPR – particularly in the digital health, fintech, and e-commerce sectors – to avoid penalties and fines.

Online marketplaces in Europe are under increased scrutiny for counterfeits and unfair competition. Japanese luxury and technology brands should leverage notice-and-takedown systems, customs enforcement, and specialised litigation to protect brand integrity.

EU consumer law, unfair commercial practices directives, and advertising rules affect how Japanese franchises market themselves in Europe. Aligning brand messages with EU rules ensures compliance and consumer trust.

Japanese enterprises that intend to protect and enforce their IP across the EU should adopt the following practices:

• Register early and broadly – secure EU trademarks and designs at the outset. Consider supplementary national filings in key markets. Monitor competitors’ filings to prevent conflicts.

• Integrate ADR clauses – include arbitration or mediation clauses in all cross-border IP, licensing, and franchise agreements. Choose neutral venues and institutions with international credibility and recognition.

• Protect trade secrets proactively – use non-disclosure agreements, technical safeguards, and contractual clauses to reinforce trade secret protection in collaborations and joint ventures.

• Anticipate digital and AI regulation – stay ahead of EU developments in AI, digital markets, and data protection. Japanese innovators should adapt compliance strategies early to avoid regulatory friction.

• Choose the right advisers – engage boutique firms with cross-border experience for tailored, practical guidance. Large firms may offer scale, but boutiques often provide efficiency, flexibility, and direct senior involvement.

• Cultural awareness – recognise that European dispute resolution can differ significantly from Japanese practice. Local expertise helps bridge cultural and procedural gaps.

The European IP and ADR landscape is both challenging and full of opportunity. For Japanese businesses, understanding the interplay between EU-wide rights, national systems, and ADR mechanisms is key to protecting innovation and resolving disputes effectively.

Greece, through its strategic position and cross-border expertise, offers a valuable entry point into this complex landscape. Boutique firms such as IP Work demonstrate how a client-focused, results-driven approach can deliver practical solutions in even the most complex cross-border matters.

By anticipating regulatory changes, safeguarding IP assets, and leveraging ADR, Japanese companies can confidently expand into Europe – turning potential challenges into pathways for growth and innovation.