1. Introduction
On Monday, February 16, 2026, the 38th Trademark Examination Guidelines Working Group of the Trademark System Subcommittee (Intellectual Property Committee, Industrial Structure Council) was held. With the adoption of the "Consent System" (Article 4, Paragraph 4 of the Trademark Act), it was approved that provisions previously dispersed across individual clauses (Article 4, Paragraph 1, Items 10 and 11) will be consolidated into the consent provisions. The new examination guidelines will be published promptly and will come into effect on April 1, 2026.
(Reference: https://www.jpo.go.jp/resources/shingikai/sangyokouzou/shousai/shohyo_wg/38-gijiyoushi.html)

2. Background of the Changes to the Examination Guidelines
Until now, Japan has in principle not permitted the co-existence of registrations for similar trademarks, even if there was a clear agreement (consent) between the parties. This differed significantly from the "Consent System" introduced in many countries, including the U.S. and Europe, and acted as a barrier for foreign companies entering the Japanese market. Furthermore, domestically, there has been an increasing number of cases where parent-subsidiary companies, group companies, or multiple entities following business restructuring handle the same brand. Conventional operations were increasingly unable to meet these practical needs.
In light of these challenges, this revision integrates the exception provisions regarding "control relationships," which were previously dispersed across multiple articles and guidelines, into a single framework under Article 4, Paragraph 4 of the Trademark Act.

3. Content of the Revision
(1) Integration and Modification of Provisions Regarding Control Relationships (Parent-Subsidiary Companies, etc.)
Previously, special handling for cases where a control relationship (parent-subsidiary, majority holding of voting rights, etc.) existed between the applicant and another party was individually prescribed within the criteria for "Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 10" and "Item 11." In this revision, these individual provisions regarding control relationships have been deleted and consolidated into the framework of the newly established "Article 4, Paragraph 4 (Consent System)." This organizes the exceptional handling, which was previously scattered, into a clearer and more consistent system.
(2) Substantive Changes (Establishment of Detailed Provisions for Article 4, Paragraph 4 (Consent System))
New specific judgment criteria have been established for the system that allows registration—even if a trademark is similar to another person's registered trademark—provided there is consent from the trademark owner and no likelihood of confusion as to the source.
(i) Codification of "No Likelihood of Confusion" based on Control Relationships:
It is explicitly stated that "no likelihood of confusion" will, in principle, be handled as such if any of the following relationships exist:
・The cited trademark owner is under the control of the applicant (e.g., the parent company applies, and a subsidiary holding a prior trademark consents).
・The applicant is under the control of the cited trademark owner (e.g., a subsidiary applies, and the parent company consents regarding its registered trademark).
・The applicant and the cited trademark owner are under the control of the same person (e.g., sister companies).
This establishes a legal basis for the handling of sister companies, which was previously unclear.
(ii) Criteria for Determining Prevention of Future Confusion:
To be recognized as having "no likelihood of confusion," it is required that confusion will not arise not only at the time of the examiner's decision but also in the future. It was clarified that a mere letter of consent is insufficient; factors such as an "agreement between the parties not to change specific usage patterns in the future" will be considered.
(iii) Comprehensive Judgment:
It has been clarified that the application of the Consent System (Article 4, Paragraph 4) will comprehensively judge the actual status of use and the content of the agreement, including:
・The relationship between the applicant and the cited trademark owner.
・The status of business implementation related to the goods/services using the trademark.
・The mode of trademark use and other circumstances of the trade.

4. Remaining Issues
(1) Strict Examination of "Future Fluctuations"
Since the absence of confusion is required "into the future," it may be necessary to submit documents such as an "agreement not to change specific circumstances in the future," which could increase the administrative burden on the parties.
(2) Principle Refusal of "Identical Trademark / Identical Designated Goods"
Even with consent, if an identical trademark is used for identical goods, the policy remains that it is in principle judged as having a "high likelihood of confusion," and registration will not be permitted. This maintains a policy where relief via consent is difficult to obtain in the very cases where it is most needed.
(3) Consideration for Exclusive Licensees, etc.
If an exclusive or non-exclusive license is registered for the cited trademark, the circumstances of the trade will not be considered unless the statements or consent of those licensees are obtained. This may cause difficulties in coordination when many interested parties are involved.