This case illustrates how the Japan Patent Office (JPO) evaluates trademarks under Article 3(1)(vi), particularly where a term is widely used in a promotional or conceptual manner across industries.
It demonstrates that even if a term is used by multiple entities, it may still be refused if it functions merely as a slogan or concept rather than a source identifier.

1. Application Details

• Mark: ECO PARTNER
• Application No.: Japanese Trademark Application No. 2023-65111
• Designated Goods/Services: A wide range of goods and services across Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 19, and 35, including construction materials, machinery, refrigeration equipment, and retail services.

2. Refusal by the JPO Examiner

The application was refused under Article 3(1)(vi) of the Japanese Trademark Act (lack of distinctiveness).

The examiner reasoned that:

• “ECO” means environmental or ecological, and
• “PARTNER” means partner or collaborator

In the relevant industries:

• the term “ECO PARTNER” is commonly used to refer to “a business entity cooperating in environmental protection activities”

Based on this, the examiner concluded that:

• the mark would be perceived merely as a description of business concept or role, and
• it does not function as a source identifier.

3. Appeal to the JPO Trial and Appeal Board

An appeal was filed against the refusal.

• Appeal No.: 2024-11703

The appeal argued that:

• the term is used by various entities as names or service identifiers, and
• it should therefore be recognized as a trademark.

4. Decision of the Appeal Board

The JPO Appeal Board upheld the refusal.

The Board found that:

• “ECO” and “PARTNER” are both commonly understood English words,
• and their combination naturally conveys the meaning of “a partner involved in environmental protection activities.”

The Board further emphasized that:

• the term “ECO PARTNER” is widely used by municipalities, companies, and organizations to describe entities participating in environmental initiatives,
• and is frequently used in advertising, certifications, and corporate philosophies.

Therefore:

• consumers would perceive the mark as a promotional or conceptual expression,
• rather than as an indication of the commercial source of goods or services.

The Board rejected the applicant’s argument that widespread use supports distinctiveness, stating that:

• such use actually reinforces the conclusion that the term lacks distinctiveness.

5. Outcome

The Board concluded that the mark lacks distinctiveness under Article 3(1)(vi), and the refusal was maintained.
The application was not registrable.

Key Point for Foreign Applicants

This case highlights an important aspect of Japanese trademark practice.

1. Widespread use can weaken distinctiveness

If a term is widely used across industries, it may be seen as a common expression rather than a trademark.

2. Slogans and concepts are often unregistrable

Expressions that convey corporate philosophy, environmental commitment, or promotional messages may lack distinctiveness.

3. Evidence of use must show source-identifying function

Use as a slogan or certification label does not establish trademark distinctiveness.

✅ Practical takeaway

In Japan, a trademark may be refused if it is perceived as:

• a general concept or promotional phrase, and
• widely used across industries without functioning as a source identifier,

The cases presented here are based on publicly available JPO decisions and are provided for informational purposes only.