{"id":71875,"date":"2026-04-28T00:40:58","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T15:40:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/?p=71875"},"modified":"2026-05-01T12:55:31","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T03:55:31","slug":"legal-strategy-false-trademark-claims-amazon-japan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/general-corporate\/legal-strategy-false-trademark-claims-amazon-japan","title":{"rendered":"Legal Strategies for False Trademark Infringement Claims on Amazon and Practical Steps for Account Reinstatement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Amazon Japan (Amazon.co.jp) has established itself as a critical social infrastructure that supports business continuity, transcending the role of a mere online marketplace. According to a survey by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, the BtoC-EC market size in Japan exceeds 26 trillion yen, and the authority to sell on such a central platform is literally a lifeline for modern businesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, behind this convenience, there has been a sharp increase in cases where the &#8220;Brand Registry&#8221; system, intended to protect intellectual property rights, is being misused as a means to eliminate competitors through &#8220;false infringement claims.&#8221; Notably, Amazon&#8217;s new policy, which came into full effect on July 23, 2024, explicitly states that strict measures, including account suspension, will be taken against repeated violations, exposing sellers to unprecedented legal risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The exercise of trademark rights is inherently a legitimate right protected by law. However, if based on false facts, it can constitute a serious illegal act under Japanese law, potentially amounting to acts of defamation under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act or obstruction of business by deception under the Penal Code. This article explains the legal practices for account protection based on records of actual false claim incidents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For more detailed information on false intellectual property infringement claims on Amazon Japan, please refer to the following article.<\/p>\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-\u30e2\u30ce\u30ea\u30b9\u6cd5\u5f8b\u4e8b\u52d9\u6240 wp-block-embed-\u30e2\u30ce\u30ea\u30b9\u6cd5\u5f8b\u4e8b\u52d9\u6240\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\"><a href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/corporate\/intellectual-property-infringement-claims\">https:\/\/monolith.law\/corporate\/intellectual-property-infringement-claims<\/a><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_53 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/general-corporate\/legal-strategy-false-trademark-claims-amazon-japan\/#Structural_Risks_of_Amazon_Japan_Account_Health_Evaluation_and_New_Policies\" title=\"Structural Risks of Amazon Japan Account Health Evaluation and New Policies\">Structural Risks of Amazon Japan Account Health Evaluation and New Policies<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/general-corporate\/legal-strategy-false-trademark-claims-amazon-japan\/#Cases_of_False_Trademark_Infringement_Claims_on_Amazon_Japan_and_the_Scope_of_Trademark_Rights\" title=\"Cases of False Trademark Infringement Claims on Amazon Japan and the Scope of Trademark Rights\">Cases of False Trademark Infringement Claims on Amazon Japan and the Scope of Trademark Rights<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/general-corporate\/legal-strategy-false-trademark-claims-amazon-japan\/#The_Doctrine_of_Reputational_Damage_Under_the_Japanese_Unfair_Competition_Prevention_Act\" title=\"The Doctrine of Reputational Damage Under the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act\">The Doctrine of Reputational Damage Under the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/general-corporate\/legal-strategy-false-trademark-claims-amazon-japan\/#Pursuing_Criminal_Liability_for_Fraudulent_Business_Obstruction_Under_Japanese_Criminal_Law\" title=\"Pursuing Criminal Liability for Fraudulent Business Obstruction Under Japanese Criminal Law\">Pursuing Criminal Liability for Fraudulent Business Obstruction Under Japanese Criminal Law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/general-corporate\/legal-strategy-false-trademark-claims-amazon-japan\/#Lost_Profits_and_Calculation_Practices_in_Damage_Claims_Under_Japanese_Law\" title=\"Lost Profits and Calculation Practices in Damage Claims Under Japanese Law\">Lost Profits and Calculation Practices in Damage Claims Under Japanese Law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/general-corporate\/legal-strategy-false-trademark-claims-amazon-japan\/#Strategic_Intervention_and_Warning_Letters_by_Japanese_Attorneys\" title=\"Strategic Intervention and Warning Letters by Japanese Attorneys\">Strategic Intervention and Warning Letters by Japanese Attorneys<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/general-corporate\/legal-strategy-false-trademark-claims-amazon-japan\/#Process_for_Withdrawing_a_Claim_and_Steps_to_Recover_an_Account_on_Amazon_Japan\" title=\"Process for Withdrawing a Claim and Steps to Recover an Account on Amazon Japan\">Process for Withdrawing a Claim and Steps to Recover an Account on Amazon Japan<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/general-corporate\/legal-strategy-false-trademark-claims-amazon-japan\/#Building_Defensive_Intellectual_Property_Governance_Utilizing_Account_Health_Assurance\" title=\"Building Defensive Intellectual Property Governance: Utilizing Account Health Assurance\">Building Defensive Intellectual Property Governance: Utilizing Account Health Assurance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/general-corporate\/legal-strategy-false-trademark-claims-amazon-japan\/#Conclusion_Consult_a_Japanese_Attorney_for_Defensive_Intellectual_Property_Governance\" title=\"Conclusion: Consult a Japanese Attorney for Defensive Intellectual Property Governance\">Conclusion: Consult a Japanese Attorney for Defensive Intellectual Property Governance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/general-corporate\/legal-strategy-false-trademark-claims-amazon-japan\/#Guidance_on_Measures_by_Our_Firm\" title=\"Guidance on Measures by Our Firm\">Guidance on Measures by Our Firm<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Structural_Risks_of_Amazon_Japan_Account_Health_Evaluation_and_New_Policies\"><\/span>Structural Risks of Amazon Japan Account Health Evaluation and New Policies<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full is-resized\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/19e93c45244456845025586696403a3c.jpg\" alt=\"Structural Risks of Amazon Japan Account Health Evaluation and New Policies\" class=\"wp-image-211940\" style=\"aspect-ratio:1.5;width:840px;height:auto\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>For businesses selling on Amazon Japan (Amazon.co.jp), their status is centrally managed through the &#8220;Account Health Rating (AHR)&#8221; dashboard within Seller Central. This system quantifies whether sellers comply with the platform&#8217;s terms and evaluates their account health in real-time. The AHR score starts at 200 points for new listings, and points are deducted each time a violation of the terms is detected, depending on its severity. The most critical issue to watch out for in this deduction system is reports concerning &#8220;intellectual property policy violations.&#8221; If Amazon Japan deems a report valid, not only is the listing immediately removed, but the AHR score significantly drops, and in the worst-case scenario, the account may be suspended immediately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The new policy, implemented in July 2024, has further tightened this enforcement process. Previously, the focus was on maintaining the score, but after the revision, &#8220;repeat violations of specific policies&#8221; have been defined as an independent suspension criterion. As a result, if the accumulated number of violations reaches a certain threshold, the system may automatically determine it as a &#8220;serious violation&#8221; and close the account, even if the overall AHR score remains within a healthy range.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td>Severity of Violation<\/td><td>Impact on Account Health<\/td><td>Main Examples<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Severe<\/td><td>Red alert, score 0. Immediate suspension if no action is taken within a 3-day grace period.<\/td><td>Counterfeit goods, pirated items, harassment of other sellers, ranking manipulation.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>High<\/td><td>Significant score deduction (usually 8 points or more).<\/td><td>Submission of a valid rights infringement notice by the rights holder.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Medium<\/td><td>Score deduction.<\/td><td>Placing links that direct to external websites, etc.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Low<\/td><td>Slight score deduction.<\/td><td>Buyer reports on expired products or discrepancies in condition.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>As indicated above, infringement reports from rights holders are generally treated with &#8220;high&#8221; severity or above. If false reports are made multiple times, sellers face the risk of having their business foundation destroyed before being given a chance to defend themselves. This new policy has become an ideal weapon for attackers aiming to eliminate competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Cases_of_False_Trademark_Infringement_Claims_on_Amazon_Japan_and_the_Scope_of_Trademark_Rights\"><\/span>Cases of False Trademark Infringement Claims on Amazon Japan and the Scope of Trademark Rights<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In a real case of false trademark infringement claims, the attacker deliberately distorted the legal scope of trademark rights. In this instance, a claim was filed with Amazon Japan (Amazon.co.jp) against a seller of clothing, using a trademark registered for entirely different product categories or services as the basis for the claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Article 25 of the Japanese Trademark Act states that &#8220;the trademark owner has the exclusive right to use the registered trademark for the designated goods or services.&#8221; Additionally, Article 37, Item 1 of the same act lists actions considered as infringement, such as &#8220;using a registered trademark for goods or services similar to the designated goods or services.&#8221; Essentially, the scope of trademark rights is fundamentally limited to the registered &#8220;designated goods or services&#8221; and those &#8220;similar&#8221; to them. However, in this case, the attacker filed a claim based on a trademark from an entirely unrelated category against products falling under &#8220;Class 25 (Clothing).&#8221; This action clearly exceeded the scope of rights enforcement under the Japanese Trademark Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td>Factors for Determining the Validity of Trademark Rights Enforcement<\/td><td>Detailed Analysis Points<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Identity and Similarity of Trademarks<\/td><td>Whether the appearance, pronunciation, and concept are common and cause consumer confusion.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Scope of Designated Goods or Services<\/td><td>Whether the registered category matches or is similar to the actual products being sold.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Exhaustion of Rights (Genuine Products)<\/td><td>If the resale (piggyback listing) of lawfully distributed genuine products occurs, the trademark rights do not apply.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Abuse of Rights<\/td><td>Whether a claim was filed for the purpose of business obstruction, despite knowing there was no infringement.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>If the products being sold are genuine brand items and their quality and warranty conditions are maintained, the &#8216;doctrine of exhaustion&#8217; applies, meaning that once the products are lawfully sold, the trademark rights have fulfilled their purpose and cannot be used to halt further distribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Therefore, filing a claim as &#8216;counterfeit&#8217; or &#8216;trademark infringement&#8217; without any objective quality degradation or alteration not only lacks legal basis but may also constitute a violation of the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act (damage to credibility) or an unlawful act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Doctrine_of_Reputational_Damage_Under_the_Japanese_Unfair_Competition_Prevention_Act\"><\/span>The Doctrine of Reputational Damage Under the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>When a seller receives a false infringement claim, the core legal recourse available is the &#8220;Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act.&#8221; Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 21 of this Act prohibits acts of unfair competition, specifically &#8220;the dissemination or notification of false facts that harm the business reputation of a competitor.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For this provision to apply in judicial practice, the following five requirements must be met:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"1\">\n<li>Existence of a &#8220;competitive relationship&#8221;: This is broadly recognized if the perpetrator and victim share potential customers or business partners. If similar products are handled within the same marketplace, such as Amazon Japan (Amazon.co.jp), this requirement is easily satisfied.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Facts concerning &#8220;another&#8217;s business&#8221;: This refers to information related to the core aspects of the seller&#8217;s business activities, such as sales activities or the legality of products.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Harm to &#8220;business reputation&#8221;: Here, &#8220;reputation&#8221; refers to social evaluation in economic activities. Being suspected of infringement by Amazon Japan and having product pages removed significantly damages social evaluation both within the platform and among customers.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Existence of &#8220;notification or dissemination of facts&#8221;: Reporting an infringement through Amazon Japan&#8217;s reporting form constitutes &#8220;notification&#8221; of infringement facts to a third party, the platform.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Existence of &#8220;false facts&#8221;: Reporting an infringement when no intellectual property rights infringement exists constitutes the notification of &#8220;false facts.&#8221;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>According to case law, even if the rights holder mistakenly believes there is an infringement and reports it, if the judgment lacks reasonable grounds and the duty to thoroughly investigate and consider the existence of infringement is neglected, negligence is recognized, and an act of unfair competition is established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.courts.go.jp\/hanrei\/92082\/detail7\/index.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"Osaka District Court Ruling on May 11, Reiwa 5 (2023) (Case No. Wa 11472 of Reiwa 3 (2021))\">Osaka District Court ruling on May 11, Reiwa 5 (2023) (Case No. Wa 11472 of Reiwa 3 (2021))<\/a>, it was reaffirmed that a rights infringement report to Amazon Japan constitutes &#8220;notification of facts&#8221; under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. The court ordered damages against the claimant who failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the facts of the infringement. Thus, the judiciary is increasingly imposing strict legal responsibilities on the easy exercise of rights through platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Pursuing_Criminal_Liability_for_Fraudulent_Business_Obstruction_Under_Japanese_Criminal_Law\"><\/span>Pursuing Criminal Liability for Fraudulent Business Obstruction Under Japanese Criminal Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full is-resized\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/548814fb0adc96eda63137f97e826bff.jpg\" alt=\"Pursuing Criminal Liability for Fraudulent Business Obstruction Under Japanese Criminal Law\" class=\"wp-image-211941\" style=\"aspect-ratio:1.5;width:840px;height:auto\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>False declarations can lead not only to civil liability but also to potential criminal penalties. Article 233 of the Japanese Penal Code stipulates that &#8220;anyone who damages another&#8217;s credit or obstructs their business by spreading false rumors or using fraudulent means shall be subject to imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to 500,000 yen.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The term &#8220;fraudulent means&#8221; here refers to deceiving others or exploiting their ignorance or misconceptions. Representatives at Amazon Japan (Amazon.co.jp) impose system restrictions based on the assumption that the reported content is truthful. However, if the reporter exploits this trust by knowingly or negligently claiming infringement when there is none, it constitutes an act of misleading the platform operator. As a result of such actions, the seller&#8217;s sales activities may be halted, disrupting regular operations such as inventory management and customer service, thereby fulfilling the criteria for &#8220;business obstruction.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In practice, cases of false reporting to Amazon Japan rarely escalate to criminal complaints. However, clearly identifying the applicability of this &#8216;fraudulent business obstruction offense&#8217; in acceptance notices or warning letters sent by attorneys can serve as a powerful negotiation tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Particularly, if the opposing party repeatedly and systematically reports multiple ASINs with the intent to eliminate competitors, such behavior is deemed malicious. In these instances, suggesting the possibility of criminal prosecution, beyond mere civil wrongdoing, can effectively prompt the opposing party to withdraw their claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lost_Profits_and_Calculation_Practices_in_Damage_Claims_Under_Japanese_Law\"><\/span>Lost Profits and Calculation Practices in Damage Claims Under Japanese Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>If a listing is suspended due to an unjust infringement claim, the affected party can seek compensation for damages under Article 709 of the Japanese Civil Code (Tort) and Article 4 of the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act. The central focus in calculating the amount of damages is the &#8220;lost profits&#8221; that would have been earned during the suspension period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In a previous ruling by the Osaka District Court, the method for calculating damages was described as follows: &#8220;The amount of damages (lost profits) due to the loss of sales opportunities caused by the suspension of listings for each claim should be calculated by taking the average monthly sales volume per product, dividing it by the number of days, and multiplying it by the duration of each suspension period and the profit amount.&#8221; This is a rational and objective calculation method, assuming that detailed sales statistics are recorded in Amazon Japan&#8217;s Seller Central.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Practically, it is essential to promptly download past sales performance data for the ASIN in question as soon as a notification of &#8220;suspected infringement&#8221; is received from Amazon Japan (Amazon.co.jp). Since Amazon&#8217;s reports may no longer provide detailed data as time passes, the initial steps in preserving evidence can determine the success or failure of a damage claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Strategic_Intervention_and_Warning_Letters_by_Japanese_Attorneys\"><\/span>Strategic Intervention and Warning Letters by Japanese Attorneys<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The internal objection process at Amazon Japan (Amazon.co.jp) primarily relies on AI and automated procedures, which presents a structural challenge as detailed legal discussions may not reach the responsible parties effectively. Therefore, in responding swiftly to false claims, it is most effective for Japanese attorneys to directly send a &#8220;Notice of Acceptance&#8221; and a &#8220;Warning Letter&#8221; to the claimant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In practice, it is common to use both certified mail and specific recorded mail. The essential elements to include in a warning letter are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol>\n<li>Specification of Facts: Clearly state the ASIN in question, the claim number, and the details of the trademark rights alleged to be infringed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Assertion of Non-Infringement: Elaborate on the legal grounds such as differences with the designated trademark class, authenticity of the product, or exhaustion of rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Indication of Illegality: Point out violations of Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 21 of the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and Article 233 of the Japanese Penal Code (Obstruction of Business by Deception).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Specific Demands: Request the claimant to express their intention to withdraw the claim to Amazon within a specified deadline, and specify the procedure (such as using a withdrawal form).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Notice of Legal Action: Notify that if there is no response or withdrawal within the deadline, immediate steps will be taken towards filing a lawsuit for damages and initiating criminal complaints.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Process_for_Withdrawing_a_Claim_and_Steps_to_Recover_an_Account_on_Amazon_Japan\"><\/span>Process for Withdrawing a Claim and Steps to Recover an Account on Amazon Japan<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full is-resized\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/8afcc8998dab5929a7d55380a67c286c.jpg\" alt=\"Process for Withdrawing a Claim and Steps to Recover an Account on Amazon Japan\" class=\"wp-image-211939\" style=\"aspect-ratio:1.5;width:840px;height:auto\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>If negotiations with the other party are successful and an agreement to withdraw the claim is reached, the ultimate goal is to &#8220;normalize the status on Amazon Japan.&#8221; It is not sufficient for the other party to simply state that they have &#8220;withdrawn&#8221; the claim; this information must be reflected in Amazon&#8217;s system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The claimant must send a withdrawal notification using Amazon&#8217;s &#8220;Claim Withdrawal Form&#8221; or by replying to the email received at the time of the infringement claim. It is necessary to ensure that the following information is correctly included:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>The original Report ID from the initial claim.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The ASIN in question.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A clear statement indicating that &#8220;the claim of infringement was incorrect.&#8221;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Once the withdrawal is processed, the claimant will receive a confirmation email from Amazon Japan. Obtaining a screenshot of this email or evidence from the &#8220;Claim History&#8221; screen within Seller Central from the other party and sharing it with Amazon&#8217;s Account Health Support from the seller&#8217;s side will expedite the recovery process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If the other party does not cooperate with the withdrawal, as a last resort, a &#8220;Non-Infringement Legal Opinion&#8221; prepared by an attorney can be directly submitted to Amazon Japan. Since Amazon&#8217;s representatives are not legal experts, presenting a legal opinion that cites precedents and statutes to visually demonstrate the absence of infringement can lead to the removal of the warning by Amazon&#8217;s decision, without waiting for the other party&#8217;s withdrawal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For more details on account recovery in cases of design right infringement claims on Amazon Japan, please refer to the following article.<\/p>\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-\u30e2\u30ce\u30ea\u30b9\u6cd5\u5f8b\u4e8b\u52d9\u6240 wp-block-embed-\u30e2\u30ce\u30ea\u30b9\u6cd5\u5f8b\u4e8b\u52d9\u6240\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\"><a href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/corporate\/amazon-design-right-infringement-legal-strategy\">https:\/\/monolith.law\/corporate\/amazon-design-right-infringement-legal-strategy<\/a><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Building_Defensive_Intellectual_Property_Governance_Utilizing_Account_Health_Assurance\"><\/span>Building Defensive Intellectual Property Governance: Utilizing Account Health Assurance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In addition to responding to false claims after they occur, companies are required to establish &#8220;defensive governance&#8221; to structurally reduce the risk of account suspension. One effective method is to register and maintain participation in Amazon Japan&#8217;s &#8220;Account Health Assurance (AHA)&#8221; program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The AHA program is a priority support service offered to businesses that are large-scale sellers and have maintained an Account Health Rating (AHR) score of 250 or higher over the past six months. The greatest advantage of this program is that when a serious violation that could lead to account suspension is suspected, Amazon Japan does not immediately take suspension measures. Instead, they first contact the seller via phone (emergency contact) and provide a 72-hour grace period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This 72-hour period is crucial for collaborating with attorneys to understand the situation and explain to Amazon Japan that &#8220;negotiations with the rights holder are currently underway&#8221; or that &#8220;legal grounds for non-infringement are being prepared.&#8221; Maintaining AHA eligibility is an extremely important strategic element, akin to &#8220;insurance&#8221; in today&#8217;s Amazon Japan business. Maintaining AHA eligibility is not merely joining a support service; it can be considered a practical investment to ensure &#8216;due process&#8217; on the platform independently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Furthermore, if you are developing your own brand products, it is essential to complete the &#8220;Amazon Brand Registry&#8221; and protect your trademark within the system. This allows you to swiftly file objections based on your brand authority in the event of unjust infringement claims by others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion_Consult_a_Japanese_Attorney_for_Defensive_Intellectual_Property_Governance\"><\/span>Conclusion: Consult a Japanese Attorney for Defensive Intellectual Property Governance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>False claims of intellectual property infringement on Amazon Japan (Amazon.co.jp) exploit the platform&#8217;s automated self-regulation mechanisms, posing a significant threat to business operations in today&#8217;s digital economy. With the policy revision in July 2024, sellers have become more vulnerable to &#8220;repeated violations.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To counter unjust claims of intellectual property infringement, effective measures include seeking civil damages under the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act, pursuing charges of fraudulent business obstruction under the Japanese Penal Code, and strategically sending certified letters through a Japanese attorney.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When faced with false claims, it is crucial to avoid emotional rebuttals and instead promptly gather evidence to objectively prove trademark classifications and product authenticity, while constructing a solid legal argument. Especially after the policy revision, swift legal action can be critical to the survival of a business. It is advisable to proactively establish defensive intellectual property governance with expert guidance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Guidance_on_Measures_by_Our_Firm\"><\/span>Guidance on Measures by Our Firm<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Monolith Law Office is a legal practice with extensive experience in both IT, particularly the Internet, and law. Proper management of intellectual property, such as trademarks that protect brands and patents that safeguard unique technologies, is directly linked to a company&#8217;s competitiveness. Our firm offers solutions for intellectual property strategies from a multifaceted perspective. Detailed information is provided in the article below.<\/p>\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-\u30e2\u30ce\u30ea\u30b9\u6cd5\u5f8b\u4e8b\u52d9\u6240 wp-block-embed-\u30e2\u30ce\u30ea\u30b9\u6cd5\u5f8b\u4e8b\u52d9\u6240\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\"><a href=\"https:\/\/monolith.law\/practices\/itlaw\/embed#?secret=cF0qEVTBUe#?secret=SpVofPZvaV\" data-wplink-edit=\"true\">https:\/\/monolith.law\/practices\/itlaw\/embed#?secret=cF0qEVTBUe#?secret=SpVofPZvaV<\/a><\/div>\n<\/figure>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Amazon Japan (Amazon.co.jp) has established itself as a critical social infrastructure that supports business continuity, transcending the role of a mere online marketplace. According to a survey by t [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":71876,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[24,41],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71875"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=71875"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71875\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":71983,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71875\/revisions\/71983"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/71876"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71875"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}