Current status of coexistence registrations based on letters of consent

As of December 1, 2025, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) reported a cumulative total of 153 trademark applications filed with letters of consent. Of these, 27 applications had already proceeded to registration (27 registrations). 

The JPO has confirmed that, to date, none of the 153 applications submitted with letters of consent have resulted in a final refusal. In practice, the JPO examiners carefully review the arguments, evidence, and letters of consent submitted by applicants. Where the examiner considers that the evidence is insufficient to conclude that there is no likelihood of confusion, they will request additional information or clarification from the applicant. This approach demonstrates a flexible, fact-driven stance on examinations, which is consistent with the underlying policy objectives the consent letters. It is not a rigid or formalistic application of refusal grounds.

 

Analysis of Coexistence Registration Cases Involving Letters of Consent

Letters of consent were introduced in April 2024 through an amendment to Article 4(4) of the Trademark Act. At the time of its introduction, the JPO indicated that it would wait for a certain number of applications using letters of consent to accumulate before conducting substantive examination.  One year after implementation, the first trademark registration under the letters of consent was granted for the “玻璃” case. Since then, the number of coexistence registrations based on letters of consent has steadily increased. According to materials prepared by the JPO, two main patterns commonly arise in cases involving letters of consent.

1)    Coexistence Based on Agreement Between the Parties (玻璃 and NOCO)

This pattern covers cases in which the parties have agreed that they are appropriately segmented in the marketplace, so that there is no likelihood of confusion. For example, in cases such as NOCO, where foreign companies are already parties to a global coexistence agreement, the JPO has accepted coexistence registrations, even when the marks themselves are identical. In such cases, examiners consider the terms of the agreement and determine that there is no likelihood of confusion, and that market separation is effectively ensured.

Previously in Japan, global coexistence agreements often required complex procedures, such as assignment-back arrangements, to be effective. Allowing such agreements to be implemented directly through a letter of consent marks a significant and welcome development in Japanese trademark practice.

2)    Cases where the origin of the goods/services is substantially identical
(e.g., LAWSON UNITED CINEMAS; GRAND GREEN OSAKA THE NORTH RESIDENCE)

This pattern focuses on the relationship between the applicant and the owner of the cited trademark, as well as how their respective businesses are actually implemented. Where the source of the goods or services is deemed to be substantively identical, the JPO has found that there is no likelihood of confusion.  This approach can be viewed as an extension of the exceptional treatment already provided for in the Examination Guidelines for cases involving a “controlling relationship” between the applicant and the owner of the cited trademark (Trademark Examination Guidelines, Part III, Section 10, Item 13). This has historically functioned as an exception to Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Act.

Against the backdrop of prolonged discussions on whether letters of consent should be introduced in Japan, the “controlling relationship” concept was introduced on a transitional basis in the 2017 revision (13th edition) of the Examination Guidelines.　 At that time, it was explicitly stated that this exception did not constitute the introduction of letters of consent. Nevertheless, as of 14 October 2025, more than 1,095 registrations had been granted under this framework, indicating strong practical demand. This accumulated practice clearly helped pave the way for the legislative amendment that ultimately introduced Article 4(4).

Historically, the controlling relationship exception applied only to parent-subsidiary relationships, not to sister companies, subsidiaries of subsidiaries, broader corporate groups, or franchisor-franchisee relationships. However, the introduction of the letters of consent has clarified that, under certain circumstances, Article 4(4) can apply even in the absence of a strict parent–subsidiary relationship. Due to the longstanding demand in this area, this is one of the most significant and anticipated applications of the letters of consent.

 

Proposed Amendment to the Examination Guidelines

Discussions are currently underway on the content of the Examination Guidelines scheduled to be amended in the spring of this year (Proposed Amendment to Trademark Examination Guidelines). The main purpose of the amendment is to clearly incorporate into the Guidelines the second pattern discussed above, namely cases where the origin of the goods or services is substantially identical, which is expected to be widely used in practice.

In short, implementing the transitional controlling relationship guidelines and the new examination framework under Article 4(4) simultaneously created confusion regarding the required arguments and evidence, as well as the scope of each guideline. This issue will be resolved by reorganizing and clarifying the Examination Guidelines. The proposed amendment broadens the practical application of Article 4(4) and improves predictability by reducing the need for applicants to provide detailed, case-by-case proof that there is no likelihood of confusion.

 

Comments

1) Substantive Significance of the Proposed Examination Guidelines Amendment

This amendment's substantive significance lies in its explicit clarification that cases involving a controlling or similar relationship or other similar relationship will be treated as ones with no likelihood of confusion. As a result, once evidence of such a relationship is submitted, applicants will generally no longer be required to provide detailed, case-by-case arguments or extensive proof of the absence of confusion. In these instances, application of Article 4(4) of the Trademark Act will be accepted almost automatically if the requirements specified in the proposed Examination Guidelines are met.

The amendment clarifies the range of eligible cases and significantly reduces the burden of argumentation and evidence on applicants by substantively expanding the scope of the long-standing Examination Guidelines based on a “controlling relationship” and reorganizing and integrating this concept into the framework of Article 4(4).

The amendment also clarifies that examiners may find no likelihood of confusion when examining trademarks, even if a "controlling relationship" or similar relationship cannot be established. This is possible by focusing on the actual implementation of business activities jointly involving the applicant and the cited trademark owner. According to the proposed amendment, the absence of confusion may be recognized if the origin of the goods or services is substantially identical.

In other words, even if the applicant and the owner of the prior registered trademark are different entities, if they have a relationship and use their respective trademarks in similar business operations, the origin of the relevant goods or services may be considered the same. Based on this, it can be concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion regarding the source.

This amendment clearly broadens the scope for applying Article 4(4). Even in cases where no controlling relationship exists, applicants can seek application of Article 4(4) by showing that the origin of the goods or services is substantially identical. They won't need to submit detailed, individualized proof negating the likelihood of confusion.

2)    Evaluation of the Amendment and Future Outlook

Although the number of cases in which the letters of consent has been applied is small, the JPO has carefully analyzed existing decisions, identified emerging patterns, and promptly incorporated them into the Examination Guidelines in a clear, accessible manner. This approach should be viewed very positively.

In actual examination practice, the JPO has demonstrated a flexible, fact-based approach. They carefully assess the relationship between the applicant and the cited trademark owner, as well as the status of coexistence in other jurisdictions. Where no likelihood of confusion is found, coexistence registrations have been permitted. These actions clearly demonstrate the JPO’s strong intention to establish the letters of consent as a practical tool for trademark law.

As more coexistence registrations based on letters of consent are added, new patterns may emerge that are not currently identified. Eventually, these patterns may be codified in the Examination Guidelines. This process is expected to further increase predictability for applicants regarding the permissibility of coexistence and continue expanding the practical use of the letters of consent.

Note that the amended Examination Guidelines are scheduled to take effect in April 2026, after the public comment period ends and a new Trademark Examination Manual is issued.