Since its introduction in April 2024, Japan’s Letter of Consent (LOC) system has drawn considerable attention. The system allows coexistence of similar trademarks where the owner of the prior mark consents and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) determines that confusion is unlikely to occur. However, statistics from the first 18 months show that the new system is not being utilized as much as may have been expected.

As of October 21, 2025, since the introduction of the LOC system, a total of 17,352 trademark applications filed in Japan (including international registrations designating Japan) have received office actions citing Article 4(1)(xi) (similarity with a prior mark). Among these, only 11 cases attempted to overcome the citation by submitting an LOC—approximately 0.06% of all cases. Out of those 11 cases, 8 were registered through acceptance of the LOC (four between entities within the same company group and four between independent parties). In the remaining 3 cases, examiners maintained the ground of refusal for 2 cases despite the submission of an LOC, and registration was granted for reasons other than LOC acceptance in the last case.

These figures indicate that the LOC system has not yet become an effective tool for overcoming similarity refusals in Japan. Several factors appear to contribute to this limited acceptance:

• Strict examination of likelihood of confusion – Applicants must prove that no likelihood of confusion exists, both at present and in the future.
• Examiners’ discretion – Even with consent, examiners may still refuse coexistence if they consider that the likelihood of confusion exists.
• Public disclosure concerns – The submitted LOC, containing agreement terms between the parties, becomes publicly accessible in the JPO record, which may deter brand owners from using the system.

Before the LOC system was introduced, Japanese practitioners often relied on the “assign-back” scheme, which involves temporarily assigning the later application to the owner of the prior registration to obtain allowance and then re-assigning it back after allowance. This approach remains in use today, particularly when the parties prefer not to disclose their arrangements or wish to avoid relying on the Examiner’s unpredictable assessment of the likelihood of confusion under the LOC system.

It will be interesting to see how the JPO’s practice will further evolve and whether applicants will more often attempt to utilize the new system in future filings.