|
 In January 2002 Kadokawa Holdings affiliate Kadokawa Shoten Publishing
Co., Ltd. submitted a trademark application for the words “NPO”
(nonprofit organization) and “Volunteer”, which appear in the
titles of its publications. On April 25, 2003, the Japan Patent Office
granted those applications. Through the Internet and various mailing lists,
many became aware of this development on June 3, and concerns were raised
that we might have to ask Kadokawa for permission to use the terms “NPO”
or “Volunteer” whenever either of them appears in any of our
publications or newspapers.
After receiving wide press coverage regarding this concern on June 5, Kadokawa
Company put its response in the next day’s morning editions of several
national newspapers. They declared that they would not file any complaints
against NPOs and volunteer groups who use either term in the titles of
any of their publications including journals, periodicals, in-house magazines,
newsletters, pamphlets, leaflets, printing materials and books.
“Trade marks” as such, are distinctive names, symbols, or designs
of products or services that serve to maintain their unique identity and
the identity of the company producing them. The purposes are to protect
the rights of the producers by preventing anyone from using the trademarked
material unfairly or destructively, and to guarantee that the trademark
holder will have the ability to secure the benefits of a loyal customer
base.
The owner of a trademark has the exclusive right to use it on a product
in the registered category and can file a claim to suspend production or
demand compensation from anyone who infringes on the trademark or uses
one bearing a close resemblance.
It goes without saying that trademark registration is necessary. In fact,
a considerable number of non-profit organizations have secured trademark
rights. For example, Tanpopo-No-Ye Foundation owns the trademark “AbleArt”.
At first, they hesitated to apply for permission since they intended to
spread the idea of “AbleArt” and let anyone use the term freely.
However, they later secured the trademark after the word was used for a
completely different object. As this case illustrates, we must sometimes
make use of the trademark system in order to insure that the character
of our ideas remains intact.
But what about the cases of “NPO” and “Volunteer”?
Is it reasonable and proper for the Japan Patent Office to grant trademark
rights for these two words to Kadokawa? The answer to this question depends
on the effect that the trademark has. Kadokawa officially said that they
would not complain when the two words are used for non-profit purposes,
and as defined in the trademark law, free papers are not considered to
infringe on trademarks anyway.
Another pertinent question is how does the patent office react when a non-profit
organization continuously receives money for its publications? First of
all, trademark rights have a far-reaching effect regardless of whether
or not their purposes are for non-profit. We may take Kadokawa’s
comment that they will give silent consent to publications issued for the
purpose of non-profit activities, and we sense their intention and willingness
to support civil activities. However, how would they react to our publications
being sold at bookstores? I presume that their stance would change entirely.
Trademarks come into effect when there is a dispute between products and
services that have the “same or resemblant name”. In other
words, the main question is whether trademarks in question are clearly
distinguishable from others. In general, the determination of acceptability
is rather easily defined. But in cases involving periodical newspapers,
magazines, etc, the determination of resemblance is very subtle.
The Japan Patent Office states that “titles for publications are
discriminative”. This is because the Japan Patent Office has decided
that consumers can distinguish one title from another even if slightly
different titles are applied. According to this standard, titles such as
“NPO Magazine” or ”Volunteer Correspondence” might
be acceptable. In fact, “Gendai Haiku” (Today Haiku) and “Haiku
Gendai” (Haiku Today) as well as the word “Haiku” itself
are all approved as trademarks.
Let’s consider the case of the title “Monthly NPO”. It
is commonly agreed upon that the word “monthly” is not acceptable
as a trademark because it is considered to be indistinguishable from other
titles. In past cases, “Ryuutsuu” (Distribution) and “Gekkann
Ryuutsuu” (Monthly Distribution) were judged as bearing too strong
a resemblance, as were “Bunnka Seikatsu” (Decent Life) and
“Gahou Bunnka Seikatsu” (Pictorial Decent Life), “Shin
Shounen” (New Boy) and “Shuukan Shin Shounen” (Weekly
New Boy).
The approval of the trademarks “NPO” and “Volunteer”
does not ban all publications containing either word, but it is not too
much to say that we must always be sensitive about infringement whenever
we plan to issue any publication with a title including either of these
words.
The Patent Office’s approval for the very public terms “NPO”
and “Volunteer” might become an obstacle when citizens become
involved in the many organizations that consider themselves NPO or volunteer.
So now several NPOs together have been preparing to file a complaint about
the Patent Office’s approval of the terms.
In any case, the incident in question is taking place at a time when relations
and the level of cooperation between the civil sector, which values sharing,
and the sector which aims at exclusive possession have been deepening.
The point is that we must question which words and phrases are public domain
and should remain as such. A great deal of citizens’ organizations
use the words “NPO” and “Volunteer” in the titles
of their publications, and for this reason objections were raised. Consequently
the outcome of the formal objections will serve as a precedent for how
public terms should be treated in future.
|
Backnumbers Index 