Skip to content
English
お問い合わせ

Japan Refused Your Goods/Services as Vague or Indefinite? How to Fix the Specification in a Madrid Designation

Picture of Takefumi Sugiura – Japanese Patent Attorney
Japan Refused Your Goods/Services as Vague or Indefinite? How to Fix the Specification in a Madrid Designation

Your Notification of Provisional Refusal from Japan may not cite a conflicting mark at all. One of the most common objections against Madrid Protocol designations of Japan is that the goods/services wording is vague, indefinite, or too broad. This is also the most fixable ground on the list — usually by a short amendment — provided you respond by the deadline. Here is why a description that sailed through WIPO fails in Japan, and exactly how to repair it.

1. Why Japan Objects to Wording WIPO Accepted

The International Bureau checks that your list of goods and services is classified correctly under the Nice Classification — it does not judge whether each expression is precise enough for substantive examination. Each designated office applies its own clarity standard, and the JPO’s is stricter than many holders expect: every description must let the examiner determine its content and its scope of similarity. Broad catch-all wording drafted for your home registry often fails that test when the designation reaches Japan.

2. The Legal Basis: Article 6 of the Japan Trademark Act

Article 6(1) requires an application to designate the goods or services for which the mark is used; Article 6(2) requires that designation to follow the classes prescribed by Cabinet Order. A description too indefinite to be understood, or one that does not sit within its class, fails these requirements — and Article 15(iii) makes that failure an independent ground for a Decision of Refusal, separate from any conflict with prior marks.

3. Typical Descriptions That Draw the Objection

PatternExample of the problem
Catch-all wording“All goods in this class”, “goods not included in other classes” — no determinable scope
Unbounded generalities“Machines and apparatus”, “services related to …”, “including but not limited to …”
Home-registry jargonExpressions customary at your home office but with no established Japanese equivalent
Class mismatchA term acceptable in itself but listed in a class the JPO considers wrong for it

The Notification identifies which items are objected to. Everything else in your specification is not in dispute — which is exactly why responding is worthwhile.

4. How to Fix It: the Narrowing Amendment

The standard cure is a written amendment (手続補正書) filed through a Japanese attorney, replacing the objected wording with definite expressions — ideally ones drawn from the JPO’s own accepted-wording lists (the Examination Guidelines for Similar Goods and Services), which examiners accept without further debate. Three rules of thumb:

  • Clarify or narrow — never broaden. Amendments may not extend the original scope.
  • Anchor to accepted wording. A specification rebuilt from listed expressions rarely gets a second objection.
  • Keep what matters commercially. Deleting marginal items is often cheaper than fighting for them.

A vague-goods objection frequently arrives combined with a prior-mark citation under Article 4(1)(xi) — in that case the amendment and the similarity argument are filed together as one response.

5. Deadline — and What Happens If You Ignore It

The response deadline is the date stated on your Notification (typically three months for overseas holders), and it can be extended — in some cases even after it has passed. See the deadline and extension rules in our complete guide to responding to a Madrid refusal in Japan. If no response is filed, the objection matures into a Decision of Refusal on the application as a whole — do not assume the clean part of your specification will survive on its own (details: what happens to partially refused designations).

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did WIPO accept my goods description but Japan refused it?
WIPO checks classification formalities; each designated office then applies its own standard of clarity. The JPO examines whether each description is definite under Article 6 of the Japan Trademark Act and its own acceptable-wording lists, so terms that passed the International Bureau can still be objected to as vague in Japan.
Can I broaden or swap my goods when responding?
No. Amendments in response to a refusal must stay within the original specification — in practice you can clarify, narrow or delete, but not extend. Wording that adds scope will be rejected as an impermissible amendment.
Do I lose my filing date by amending the description?
No. A permissible clarifying or narrowing amendment keeps the designation and its priority intact; only the wording of the specification changes.
What happens if I ignore a vague-goods objection?
The objection ripens into a Decision of Refusal. Because the JPO decides on the application as a whole, relying on the unobjected part surviving automatically is not a safe strategy — respond, even if the response is a simple deletion of the problem wording.

FOR HOLDERS & FOREIGN COUNSEL

Received a Provisional Refusal for Japan?

Send us the Notification PDF — EVORIX responds to JPO Office Actions for overseas holders. Free assessment and a fixed quote within 3-5 business days.

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about Japanese trademark practice as of September 2026 and does not constitute legal advice. Examination practice and official fees may change; the deadline and options for a specific case depend on the documents actually issued. Please consult a qualified Japanese attorney about your specific matter.

Sources