We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
19 November 2012
On June 27 2012 the IP High Court reversed a Japan Patent Office (JPO) trial decision that refused to invalidate the trademark registration for the mark TARZAN (in Japanese Katakana) for "plastic processing machines and apparatus, automatic extruding robot for plastic extruding machines and chuck (machine elements)" in Class 7.
The court determined that the mark TARZAN, registered by KK Star Seiki, fell under Article 4(1)(7) of the Trademark Law (127/1959, as amended). The court then invalidated the mark under Article 46(1) of the Trademark Law.
Article 4(1)(7) of the law provides that registration cannot be obtained "in the case of trademarks liable to contravene public order or morals".
Article 46(1) of the law provides that:
"where a trademark registration falls under any of the following items, a trial for invalidation of trademark registration may be demanded for the invalidation of the trademark registration. In such a case, if two or more designated goods or designated services are covered by the trademark registration, a trial may be demanded with respect to each of such designated goods or designated services:
(1) where the registration has been effected contrary to Articles 3, 4 (1)… of the Law."
KK Star Seiki filed its trademark application for the mark TARZAN (in Japanese Katakana) for the designated goods in Class 7 on January 20 2010. The mark was registered on July 16 2010 (Trademark Registration 5338568).
Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc was founded by Edgar Rice Burroughs on March 24 1923. Pursuant to an agreement of April 2 1923 the company received from Burroughs the rights to all the books in the Tarzan series, and has managed these rights since then. On February 4 2011 the company demanded a trial for invalidation of the subject trademark under Article 46(1) of the Trademark Law.
On July 26 2011 the JPO issued a trial decision refusing to invalidate the subject trademark.
The JPO's reasoning was as follows:
Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc appealed to the IP High Court. The court reversed the JPO trial decision on June 27 2012.
According to the evidence, the IP High Court found the basic facts to be as follows:
Judgment on famousness of Tarzan
The popularity of Tarzan has been gradually fading in Japan since the 1970s; at the time of examination of the subject trademark (July 6 2010), more than 10 years after the Disney animated film, the novel and its derivative works or tie-in products have had little prominence.
At the time of examination of the subject trademark, 'Tarzan' recalls the image of a young man yelling and leaping from tree to tree in the jungle; different generations of the public may have different recollections. Thus, the name 'Tarzan' has no general definite character, feature or personality. Although Japanese consumers have vague memories of Tarzan, at the time of examination it was not widely known that 'Tarzan' was the title of or a character in works by Burroughs or the trademark managed by the plaintiff. Therefore, it could not be said that the trial court erred in its judgment.
Judgment on Article 4(1)(7)
The products subject to the TARZAN licence agreements in Japan include a magazine, casual shoes, apparel goods such as underwear, television broadcasting, books and soft-cover books for children. In view of the fact that the licensee, Disney, is a global, influential enterprise, it is difficult to admit that the word 'Tarzan' has, to any extent, the economic power to attract consumers in the field of the designated goods ("plastic processing machines and apparatus, automatic extruding robot for plastic extruding machines and chuck (machine elements)"), which are not products for general consumers.
Even if the defendant's intention in filing the application for the subject trademark was to utilise the image of Tarzan (ie, a young man yelling and jumping from tree to tree in the jungle) for an extruding robot for plastic-forming machines, this does not support the plaintiff's contention that its trademark has been plagiarised with the purpose of taking advantage of the Tarzan image or its power to attract customers.
However, the made-up word 'Tarzan' is understood around the world, including in the United States, to be the name of a fictitious character with a concrete concept – although it is not well known in Japan. Thus, to maintain the registration of the subject trademark which consists only of the word 'Tarzan' should be considered as contravening international morals, even if the word 'Tarzan' itself has no power to attract customers in respect of the designated goods involved.
Further, the word 'Tarzan' is the name of the character appearing in the Tarzan series created by Burroughs. The Japanese copyright in that name was still in effect at the time of examination of the subject trademark (July 6 2010), as were the copyrights in various derivative works. The plaintiff has maintained and preserved the value of the original Tarzan novel and its various derivative works by producing an online archive covering all works of the Tarzan series. The plaintiff has also maintained trademark registrations for the TARZAN mark throughout the world, including in the United States, and has maintained and managed the commercial value of the mark by concluding and controlling licence agreements.
In a situation where the copyrights in the original novels still exist and an organisation maintains and manages the cultural and economic value thereof, it is improper – from the viewpoint of maintaining fair trade – to allow circumstances where:
On the other hand, the defendant was not involved in the maintenance of the cultural and commercial value of the word 'Tarzan', and thus it was improper to allow the defendant to monopolise the use of the word 'Tarzan', even if limited to the designated goods.
Thus, the registration of the subject trademark was an act harmful to fair trade and therefore liable to contravene public order or morals. The judgment held that the subject trademark fell under Article 4(1)(7) of the Trademark Law.
The court held that the plaintiff's claim was well grounded and thus should be admitted.
By the same ruling, the IP High Court also invalidated the TARZAN trademark in English (Trademark Registration 5338569).
In connection with Article 4(1)(7) of the Trademark Law, it is generally considered that the following types of mark fall under the category of trademarks liable to contravene public order or morals:
Although many previous court cases have involved issues under Article 4(1)(7) of the Trademark Law, in connection with the issue of a trademark that contravenes international morals it should be noted that on July 31 2002 the Tokyo High Court issued a judgment in favour of the owner of the mark SALVADOR DALI against the owner of the mark DARI and invalidated the DARI mark, because such mark is considered to be a trademark harmful to fair competition and in contravention of international morals. Another case of the IP High Court (September 20 2006) resulted in a judgment in favour of the provincial government against an Ontario corporation that owned the trademark ANNE OF GREEN GABLES and upheld the invalidation of such trademark, as it was considered to be a trademark in contravention of international morals.
There has been much discussion of who should qualify as the trademark owner of the title of a literary work or a character appearing in such literary work where the copyright itself cannot be protected. After the effective copyright period, the copyright itself should be in the public domain and anyone can use it. It would be odd if only the organisation which succeeded the copyright could file a trademark application for such title or character name and could obtain the trademark even after the effective period of the copyright.
In the TARZAN case the IP High Court carefully examined the various circumstances involved as to the positions and activities of the parties, and rendered a fair judgment after carefully weighing the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.