|  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 