:::::::::::::: MENU:::::::::::::
Cautionary Notice on "SOLTRON"
Additional Notice
Contuct Us

Cautionary notice on"SOLTRON"-fuel additive

(1) "SOLTRON" & "SOLPOWER" brands both represent our proprietary research products that must be set apart from any other similar offerings worldwide in the traits and the efficacies.

They both originated and are under development in Japan only.

Caution is urged on all interested parties against an allegation made on www and other media outlets by a Japanese national named "SHINJI MAKINO" to the effect that "SOLTRON" was invented by him and that he had rights in Japan to the brand name "SOLTRON"

In Nagoya area of Japan, there are the copy-cats being pushed to ride on the merits of our products and all prospective buyers are advised to make certain of the origins and the credentials.

(2) We are a research lab that is responsible for invention introduction of Bio-engineered fuel-additive brand-named "SOLTRON"and the related products. It has recently been brought to our attention that an entity in the U.S. by the name of SOLPOWER CORORATION in Scottsdale,Arizona is engaged in selling licence for manufacture/marketing of a product under the brand-name of"SOLTRON"claiming the same features as our product's in conjunction with an Australian party-Dominion Capital Pty.Ltd. Be advised that we are a party neither to SOLPOWER- CORPORATION(SLPW)in the U.S.nor to any commitment existing between SLPW and the Australian party.

All parties interested in the product are thus exhorted to check with us on credibility of any local marketers as well as source of the product on sale under the brand-name of"SOLTRON" as fuel additive,prior to taking a plunge headlong for it.

Notice to interested parties on our status and our Products.

Be advised that we are a research lab responsible for invention and introduction of bio-engineered products under brand-names "SOLTRON" & "SOLPOWER" among others and that we have been in the business over the last ten years plus under backing of such legal tools as trade-mark/design registration & patent right with clients extending over a number of countries.

Due to a smear campaign currently being under taken against us by an Australian outfit over product credibility, all interested parties are urged to check on it against each offering,where appropriate, in light of regulatory clearance and usefulness required of it.
We will readily make available our samples for tests, trials & comparisons.

Our Patent & Registered Mark Rights in Japan.

Patent No: 1958780
Registered Mark No: 3335328

Notice (Supplement to our Cautionary Notice posted)

All interested parties are advised to take note:
1) that the case of Trade-Mark infringement over "SOLTRON" in Japan we had pressed against the imitation has now been brought to an end under final judgment handed down by the Patent Office in Tokyo under the mail NO.051970 dated December 18, 2000, re-establishing us as a sole legitimate owner to the trade-mark "SOLTRON" and the logo in Japan
2) that any similar trade-mark and logo used in the U.S. and elsewhere by the parties other than our designated agents are not to be confused with ours
3) that our SOLTRON brand in Japan represents its own in terms of the quality.


Verdict on Petition filed

* Translation of Notice served by 
Board of Review , Patent office , Tokyo 

Mailing No. 051970

Verdict on Petition filed

Petition No. 91112 filed in 1999. 
Trade-Mark registrant F Crest Japan K.K. 
Proxy Patent Attorney F Y. YANAGIKAWA 
  1197, KIZAWA, OOAZA, OYAMA-City,
Proxy Patent Attorney F T. HONDA
  Room9, 8th Floor, HOSOKAWA- Bldg., 
This is to notify that the verdict is reached over Trade-Mark registration
No. 4267173 against the petition filed. 
Verdict@F Trade-Mark registration No. 4267173 is now rescinded.
(1) Trade-Mark registered that was reviewed. 
Registration No. 4267173(the subject) was granted under the product category of@"Industrial oil, fuel" (Class-4) under the date of April 30,
1999 as a result of an application filed on April 9, 1998. 
(2) Petitioner's case. 
Petitioner's trade-mark quoted has been and is acknowledged in the market to represent a collection of the petitioner's products. 
Using the subject which is identical or similar to the petitioner's against
the designated products falls under No. 10 & 15, code-1, item-4 of trade-mark law as well as under No. 19 since it constitutes misconduct. Therefore, the subject should be rescinded.
(3) Reason for rescission of the subject.
The gist of notice served the registrant, rescinding the subject pursuant to code No. 9, item-43/9 under the trade-mark law as being covered by No.7, code-1, item-4 of the trade-mark law, is as follows : According to the array of evidence submitted by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner had the products by the sobriquets of "fuel combustion enhancer", "fuel improver catalyst" that are conducive to enhancing fuel efficiency by way of administering into fuel tanks of automotive & other internal combustion engines, from around the year 1991 and on under the design-mark quoted separately, and that they were widely advertised via print ads and the sales agents numbering 25 extending over 13 districts from Hokkaido to Okinawa, well before the registrant submitted the application for the trade-mark. 
Besides, it is acknowledged that the registrant had been engaged in transactions of the petitioner's products with full knowledge of the petitioner's trade-mark, prior to submitting its application. The above supports the circumstances that the petitioner's trade-mark attached to the products as "fuel combustion enhancer" or "fuel improver catalyst" had been in the market and had been widely acknowledged among the traders, well before the registrant put in the application. The design of the petitioner's mark has its own distinctive feature at the second letter "0", while that of the registrant's has a comparable design of "0" at the same spot, and thus the two design marks have close similarity in appearance and namesake "SOLTRON". Furthermore, the products designated for the registrant's mark are closely associated with those selling with the petitioner's mark attached. 
All the above elicits a conclusion that the registran's mark that is almost identical to the petitioner's is not deemed coincidentally designed and that it was a misappropriation(stealing) of the petitioner's by the registrant. Such practice stands against fair trade practice rule and disrupts public order, and thus labeling the registrant's mark as one registered in violation of No.7, Code-1, item-4 of the trade-mark law is appropriate. 
(4) Registrant's case.
The following in summary was presented by the registrant against the above (3). 
1) It is true that the applicant was aware when he submitted the application that the trade-mark similar to the applicant's had been attached to the designated products marketed and advertised by the petitioner via print & other media vehicles. 
2) The sales pitches mounted by the petitioner during 1993~1994 period via the media vehicles were quite conspicuous in the market. However, the applicant, noting that the ads in the market waned along with the low popularity of the products, decided to file the application, on the grounds that the petitioner's mark was not granted with legal support for the use and that checks on the registrar of marks revealed no similar designs for the applicant's use, but with the aim of protecting under its own mark the products that had been developed by the applicant as alternatives to the petitioner's, and as the result the registration was granted. 
3) The petitioner's material evidences submitted support the registrant's case. During 1993~1994 period, ads were mounted repeatedly in magazines but thereafter, only one is noticed in January 1997 edition of "World Jet Sports Magazine".
It is evident that the petitioner's ads had been left dormant up to the date (Aug. 23, 1999) when the suit was filed by the petitioner, and it is presumed that the petitioner's marketing efforts had been stagnant for approx. Five years after 1995, falling in line with the estimated petitioner's revenues in the period. 
4) The list of agents submitted is without the date. It could be one for around 1994.
5) The evidence No.28 submitted as a report made by K.K. TOYOTA TECK(OSAKA) shows that NISSAN and MITUBISHI were used for test vehicles in assessment which is quite unusual a practice by TOYOTA- affiliated agent, and the reliability of the evidence is in doubt.
6) The evidences No.29 & 33 suggest that the petitioner's products were partially in the market but it does not prove that they were widely present in the market.
7) The evidences No.34 & 36 point only to promotional campaigns conducted in 1994 for new products.
8) The evidences No.37, 304-14, 319, 328 are all identical, signed by personnel. Who the signers were in relation to the contents, whether they were informed of the contents and who the parties named were in the contents are not clear. Some certificates give an impression that the signers were illprepared to sign them. (For instance, No.304 lacks period of use on 12 & 13.)
All the above indicates that the petitioner's mark was not well-established in the market. 
9) If the evidences No.37 & 304-14 are sufficient to establish the petitioner's mark as being widely acknowledged by parties in the market at the time-point of 1999, the market witnesses should be called upon to testify to that effect in the review.
10) The evidences No.305 & 318 concern the registrant & the representative and show only that the representative was in the know of the petitioner's products in the market. 

(5) Judgement of the board of review.
The two rival marks as shown in the attached sheet are similar in the spelling and the design (composition) of logo for the second letter "0", signifying "SOLTRON" as a whole. Thus, the two marks are nearly identical. Meanwhile, judging by the evidences submitted by the petitioner, it is fair to acknowledge that the petitioner's mark had been in use on the products by the sobriquets such as "fuel combustion enhancer" and "fuel improver catalyst" that are conducive to enhancing fuel efficiency by way of administering into fuel tanks of automotive & other internal combustion engines, long before the application was filed by the registrant, and that the sales network comprising 25 agents in 13 districts extending from HOKKAIDO to OKINAWA fielded marketing pitches aggressively via print media ads. 
Furthermore, the petitioner's evidences No.305 & 318 show that the registrant's representative signed as witness to contracts|patent, trade-mark licensing agreement (evidence No.307) and technical assistance agreement (evidence No.308) |formalized between the petitioner and K.K. KANEMURA SHOJI over fuel improver catalyst "SOLTRON" under the date of December 24, 1994 (predating application by the registrant).
With other evidences put together, it is evident that the registrant's personnel had the hands in transactions involving the petitioner's products by the afore-mentioned sobriquets. After all, the registrant (the representative included) was familiar with the petitioner's products and the trade-mark attached to them and the products designated under the subject-Industrial oil, fuel- are closely associated with the petitioner's products in the use, the users, etc.
The board of review served the notice of rescission, pursuant to code No.1, item-43/9 under the trade-mark law, for cases defined under No.7, code-1, item-4 of the trade-mark law and aimed at preserving public order and high moral standards, in light of the petitioner's case and evidences submitted. The trade-mark law dictates that trade-mark be protected to preserve the proprietor's credit status in the trade and, as the result, to bring about progress in industry as well as benefits to the public (item-1), which means also that the protective measure under the law must not be allowed to run counter to the intended effects. No.7, Code-1, item-4 of the trade-mark law must be interpreted in the above light. Then, such cases of trade-mark design as being taken radically anti-social and anti-common sense for the time, perceived to do disservice to public & business orders, must come under the item-4 to be dealt with accordingly and be denied the registration of trade-marks.
Matched against the above principles, the subject mark constitutes the case of misappropriation(stealing) of the petitioner's trade-mark since it was modeled on the petitioner's, handily precluding the case of coincidence, and the application was filed with intent to do the disservice mentioned above. The case presented by the registrant in the above (4) is a frame-up to turn the circumstances surrounding its own and the petitioner's cases over the trade-mark in its own favour for its own gains in business, on the admission that the registrant (the representative included) had had the knowledge of the petitioner's trade-mark in the market and that it had participated in business transactions involving the petitioner's products with the trade-mark attached, and therefore it goes against the principles set forth in the trade-mark law, for violating public moral standards. Thus, the case is unacceptable. 
The verdict is that the subject must be rescinded pursuant to code-2, item-43/3 of the trade-mark law for the reason of contravening No.7, code-1, item-4 of the trade-mark law. 

@@@Patent office /  Reviewer (chief) FY. KOMATSU
Reviewer FT. HARA
Reviewer FY. MIURA


Trade Mark reviewed (the subject)
Trade Mark quoted (against the subject) 
@@@‚r‚n‚k‚s‚q‚n‚m (color shades omitted) 
Category F T 1651D@22@|Z@i‚y‚O‚Sj 
@@@@@@@                  @@Certified by the board of review, Patent office. 
                                               Secretary F Y. MURAKOSHI

December 18, 2000


Page Top Next

Copyright ©2001
All rights reserved.Since 1986