JPO Trademark Examination Survey: What It Means for Overseas Filers
Each year, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) surveys various trademark applicants and their representatives to gather feedback on the quality of trademark examination. The results are used to identify areas for improvement and inform the JPO's ongoing quality management efforts. See "Report on the User Satisfaction Survey Regarding the Quality of Trademark Examination" (Japanese).
Published in September 2026, the latest report presents the results of the FY2025 survey.
Overall Evaluation
Overall assessments of trademark examination remained positive. The proportion of respondents rating examination quality as "average" or better rose to 96.0%, up from 94.3%. Meanwhile, only 4.1% gave a rating of "somewhat dissatisfied" or "dissatisfied".
The clearest positive result concerned communication with examiners. For telephone, email and interview communications, 96.5% of respondents gave a rating of "average" or better, while 81.4% selected one of the two highest satisfaction ratings. The latter figure was a substantial increase from 75.3% the previous year and exceeded the JPO's FY2025 target of 65%.
For overseas applicants, this is an encouraging finding. Direct communication with a Japanese examiner can be an important part of resolving examination issues, and the survey suggests that practitioners generally regard these interactions favourably.
Comparison with other juristictions in the TM5
Another notable finding concerns the comparison with the other four offices in the "Trademark Five" (TM5): the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and Korea's Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP, formerly KIPO).
Among the respondents with experience across multiple TM5 offices, the JPO came out on top on every metric that was surveyed: examination decisions and understanding, consistency of examination decisions, the content of office actions, and communication with examiners. Text comments from respondents also praised the quality and care with which Japanese refusal notices explain the grounds for refusal.
The survey also asked respondents to compare the substantive approach taken by other offices with that of the JPO. The USPTO, CNIPA and MOIP were generally perceived as stricter than the JPO in assessing distinctiveness, trademark similarity and the acceptability of designated goods and services. The EUIPO was also perceived as stricter on distinctiveness and similarity, and similar in terms of designated goods and services.
Areas for Improvement
Improvements in examination quality are always a work in progress. The JPO continues to identify three priority areas in this regard: assessments of distinctiveness, consistency with appeal and court decisions, and consistency between examiners.
Distinctiveness was the subject of more negative comments than any other examination category in the survey, with consistency between examiners also attracting considerable criticism. Some respondents felt that distinctiveness assessments had become stricter than in the past. Others highlighted variations in how distinctiveness, trademark similarity and the acceptability of designated goods and services were assessed.
For overseas applicants, the practical implication is that the assessment of distinctiveness remains an area requiring particular care.
What This Means for overseas filers
Users generally rate Japanese trademark examination positively, and communication with examiners stands out as particularly strong. The JPO also received the most favourable comparative ratings among the TM5 offices across all criteria covered by the survey.
Careful preparation is clearly important. Selecting appropriate goods and services, assessing distinctiveness and potential conflicts before filing, and responding effectively to any refusal can all influence the chances of a successful outcome. An experienced Japanese trademark agent can help overseas applicants navigate these issues and achieve the best possible outcome.
Reference
FY2026 Report on the User Satisfaction Survey Regarding the Quality of Trademark Examination (令和8年度 商標審査の質についてのユーザー評価調査報告書)
Steve Denney
Director, International Clients & Business Development, KIPB (Japan)
We offer discounted services for many first-time clients and seamless onboarding for companies transitioning their Japanese IP matters to our firm.
