Japan's Kato Says Talks With Markets Key for Bond Issuance
Japan's Finance Minister said that discussions with market participants is a key factor in making sure that government bonds are bought and sold stably, as the ministry neared a closely watched gathering with investors.
'We are engaged in thoughtful and careful dialogue with the market, and it is incumbent upon us to make sure that government bonds are being bought,' Finance Minister Katsunobu Kato said in an interview with Bloomberg TV on Friday. As the Bank of Japan steps back from bond purchases, the government needs to find other investors to fill the gap, he said.
Kato's comments come as the ministry is scheduled to hold a meeting with primary dealers on June 20, three days after the BOJ is broadly expected to slow its pace of bond purchase cuts.
Market expectations are increasing that the ministry will review its bond issuance plans for the current fiscal year, after a recent jump in the volatility of super-long yields and concerns swirl over Japan's longer-term fiscal health amid talks of more fiscal spending.
Last month weak demand pushed 30 and 40-year bond yields to record highs, sending a warning to the government that it may need to rethink how it issues bonds.
While stressing the importance of predictability, Kato also said that the ministry 'clearly mentions that the annual plan could be changed during the fiscal year,' although he didn't comment specifically on changes to the current bond issuance plan.
On the rise in super-long term yield volatility, Kato said that a winding down of life insurers' need to comply with regulatory capital requirements was part of the reason behind the sudden jumps.
Market expectations have been intensifying that the ministry may adjust debt issuance by increasing sales of shorter maturity securities and trimming offerings of longer-dated ones. The ministry generally says that adjustments to its issuance plans are possible during the year. Changes usually happen when extra budgets are issued.
'We do decide for example the composition of short, medium or longer term bonds and other matters,' said Kato. 'The Ministry of Finance will decide and execute accordingly.'
Earlier this week the ministry pushed back against speculation it may buyback bonds as soon as next month, saying that it's 'unrealistic.'
While Kato brushed aside a question on buybacks, he referred to the broader bond market environment's predicament of needing more investors.
Weaker appetite for government bonds is raising alarm, as the BOJ continues to step back from massive bond purchases. Since last August, the central bank has steadily trimmed its purchases of government bonds at a pace of around ¥400 billion a quarter. Still, it retained ¥559.3 trillion as of the end of last year, more than half the market.
Kato said the country needs to step up its efforts to attract both domestic and foreign investors into the Japanese government bond market, as the central bank continues to pull back. Developing more attractive bond products is one way of achieving that need, he said.
The minister emphasized that while interest rates are under the central bank's remit, the ministry's responsible for making sure that government debt continues to be bought.
'I do admit that it might be more stable for the JGB holdings if there were more domestic holders of government bonds,' Kato said, citing foreign exchange risks and other factors. 'Whether it may be domestic or international holders of JGBs, what is most important is that government bonds will be purchased.'
With assistance from Takashi Umekawa and Toru Fujioka.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Bombay HC quashes order refusing Yamaha trademark similar to Honda's; directs authority to decide afresh
In a relief to Japanese automobile company Yamaha, the Bombay High Court has set aside an order refusing it a trademark similar to one already registered by Honda Motor Company and directed the registrar, Trade Marks, to adjudicate the issue afresh. A bench of Justice Manish Pitale on June 13 said while a bare perusal of the two trademarks - Yamaha's WR and Honda's WR-V - may cause confusion in the minds of the public, the authority ought to have considered the case as exceptional circumstances and issued an advertisement seeking objections from the public before rejecting Yamaha's application. The court stated the authority, in its "cryptic" order, completely ignored the claim of Yamaha's international reputation while refusing the application and the fact that the company has been using the WR trademark internationally since 1990. Justice Pitale said the authority could have passed a "detailed and well-reasoned order". Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha had moved the high court, challenging a May 2021 order by the registrar/examiner of Trade Marks, refusing the company's application for registration of trademark 'WR'. The authority had said that there was a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public between the trademark of Yamaha, for which registration was sought, and a similar trademark already on the register. The registrar had cited the trademark of Honda Motor Company Ltd - WR-V - registered in the same category as a conflicting mark. Justice Pitale, in the order, said on a bare perusal of the two marks - 'WR' of Yamaha and 'WR-V' of Honda - it was unable to accept Yamaha's contention that there is no possibility of confusion in the mind of the public. It is to be noted that the cited mark WR-V is registered in the same class 12, which includes motorcycles, the court said. "Therefore, invoking Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act , on the part of the respondent (Registrar/Examiner of Trade Marks), cannot be said to be misplaced," it noted. Justice Pitale said Yamaha has failed to demonstrate how this section, which pertains to similarity to a particular trademark leading to confusion in the mind of the public, cannot be invoked. The court, however, noted that it was incumbent on the authority to consider Yamaha's contention that it has been using the 'WR' trademark internationally since 1990. "This could be a situation creating special circumstances in favour of the petitioner (Yamaha)," it said. Justice Pitale said it was not an unknown phenomenon that identical or similar trademarks could exist on the register. The court quashed the order passed by the registrar/examiner of Trade Marks rejecting Yamaha's application for the 'WR' trademark. It directed the authority to advertise the application of the petitioner before acceptance as per provisions of the Trade Marks Act and thereafter proceed in accordance with the law. Under section 20(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the authority can advertise the application seeking objections from the public before accepting the application. The registrar opposed Yamaha's plea in court and reiterated that its trademark WR was not distinguishable from the cited WR-V, and hence, there was a likelihood of confusion in people's minds. Yamaha, in its plea, however, contended that its trademark 'WR' was in the context of its motorcycle and the trademark WR-V of the Honda Motor Company Limited was in the context of its car. It stated that the two have concurrently existed over various international jurisdictions. The company pointed out that it adopted the trademark 'WR' in August 1990 for two-wheeler and three-wheeler products, parts and accessories, has sold these products in 131 countries since 1999 and was selling them in at least 62 countries. The company intended to launch its WR range of motorcycles in India and had hence filed its application for registration of the trademark WR in 2018. It submitted to the court that the registrar passed the order rejecting its application in a mechanical manner without properly applying its mind.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
Bombay HC quashes order refusing trademark to Yamaha, directs fresh review
In a relief to Japanese automobile company Yamaha, the Bombay High Court has set aside an order refusing it a trademark similar to one already registered by Honda Motor Company and directed the registrar, Trade Marks, to adjudicate the issue afresh. A bench of Justice Manish Pitale on June 13 said while a bare perusal of the two trademarks Yamaha's WR and Honda's WR-V may cause confusion in the minds of the public, the authority ought to have considered the case as exceptional circumstances and issued an advertisement seeking objections from the public before rejecting Yamaha's application. The court stated the authority, in its "cryptic" order, completely ignored the claim of Yamaha's international reputation while refusing the application and the fact that the company has been using the WR trademark internationally since 1990. Justice Pitale said the authority could have passed a "detailed and well-reasoned order". Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha had moved the high court, challenging a May 2021 order by the registrar/examiner of Trade Marks, refusing the company's application for registration of trademark 'WR'. The authority had said that there was a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public between the trademark of Yamaha, for which registration was sought, and a similar trademark already on the register. The registrar had cited the trademark of Honda Motor Company Ltd WR-V registered in the same category as a conflicting mark. Justice Pitale, in the order, said on a bare perusal of the two marks 'WR' of Yamaha and 'WR-V' of Honda it was unable to accept Yamaha's contention that there is no possibility of confusion in the mind of the public. It is to be noted that the cited mark WR-V is registered in the same class 12, which includes motorcycles, the court said. "Therefore, invoking Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, on the part of the respondent (Registrar/Examiner of Trade Marks), cannot be said to be misplaced," it noted. Justice Pitale said Yamaha has failed to demonstrate how this section, which pertains to similarity to a particular trademark leading to confusion in the mind of the public, cannot be invoked. The court, however, noted that it was incumbent on the authority to consider Yamaha's contention that it has been using the 'WR' trademark internationally since 1990. "This could be a situation creating special circumstances in favour of the petitioner (Yamaha)," it said. Justice Pitale said it was not an unknown phenomenon that identical or similar trademarks could exist on the register. The court quashed the order passed by the registrar/examiner of Trade Marks rejecting Yamaha's application for the 'WR' trademark. It directed the authority to advertise the application of the petitioner before acceptance as per provisions of the Trade Marks Act and thereafter proceed in accordance with the law. Under section 20(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the authority can advertise the application seeking objections from the public before accepting the application. The registrar opposed Yamaha's plea in court and reiterated that its trademark WR was not distinguishable from the cited WR-V, and hence, there was a likelihood of confusion in people's minds. Yamaha, in its plea, however, contended that its trademark 'WR' was in the context of its motorcycle and the trademark WR-V of the Honda Motor Company Limited was in the context of its car. It stated that the two have concurrently existed over various international jurisdictions. The company pointed out that it adopted the trademark 'WR' in August 1990 for two-wheeler and three-wheeler products, parts and accessories, has sold these products in 131 countries since 1999 and was selling them in at least 62 countries. The company intended to launch its WR range of motorcycles in India and had hence filed its application for registration of the trademark WR in 2018. It submitted to the court that the registrar passed the order rejecting its application in a mechanical manner without properly applying its mind.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Bombay HC quashes order refusing Yamaha trademark similar to Honda's; directs authority to decide afresh
In a relief to Japanese automobile company Yamaha, the Bombay High Court has set aside an order refusing it a trademark similar to one already registered by Honda Motor Company and directed the registrar, Trade Marks, to adjudicate the issue afresh. A bench of Justice Manish Pitale on June 13 said while a bare perusal of the two trademarks - Yamaha's WR and Honda's WR-V - may cause confusion in the minds of the public, the authority ought to have considered the case as exceptional circumstances and issued an advertisement seeking objections from the public before rejecting Yamaha's application. The court stated the authority, in its "cryptic" order, completely ignored the claim of Yamaha's international reputation while refusing the application and the fact that the company has been using the WR trademark internationally since 1990. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Get Ozempic, Wegovy or Mounjaro at a low price Medvi Get Offer Undo Justice Pitale said the authority could have passed a "detailed and well-reasoned order". Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha had moved the high court, challenging a May 2021 order by the registrar/examiner of Trade Marks, refusing the company's application for registration of trademark 'WR'. Live Events The authority had said that there was a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public between the trademark of Yamaha, for which registration was sought, and a similar trademark already on the register. The registrar had cited the trademark of Honda Motor Company Ltd - WR-V - registered in the same category as a conflicting mark. Justice Pitale, in the order, said on a bare perusal of the two marks - 'WR' of Yamaha and 'WR-V' of Honda - it was unable to accept Yamaha's contention that there is no possibility of confusion in the mind of the public. It is to be noted that the cited mark WR-V is registered in the same class 12, which includes motorcycles, the court said. "Therefore, invoking Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act , on the part of the respondent (Registrar/Examiner of Trade Marks), cannot be said to be misplaced," it noted. Justice Pitale said Yamaha has failed to demonstrate how this section, which pertains to similarity to a particular trademark leading to confusion in the mind of the public, cannot be invoked. The court, however, noted that it was incumbent on the authority to consider Yamaha's contention that it has been using the 'WR' trademark internationally since 1990. "This could be a situation creating special circumstances in favour of the petitioner (Yamaha)," it said. Justice Pitale said it was not an unknown phenomenon that identical or similar trademarks could exist on the register. The court quashed the order passed by the registrar/examiner of Trade Marks rejecting Yamaha's application for the 'WR' trademark. It directed the authority to advertise the application of the petitioner before acceptance as per provisions of the Trade Marks Act and thereafter proceed in accordance with the law. Under section 20(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the authority can advertise the application seeking objections from the public before accepting the application. The registrar opposed Yamaha's plea in court and reiterated that its trademark WR was not distinguishable from the cited WR-V, and hence, there was a likelihood of confusion in people's minds. Yamaha, in its plea, however, contended that its trademark 'WR' was in the context of its motorcycle and the trademark WR-V of the Honda Motor Company Limited was in the context of its car. It stated that the two have concurrently existed over various international jurisdictions. The company pointed out that it adopted the trademark 'WR' in August 1990 for two-wheeler and three-wheeler products, parts and accessories, has sold these products in 131 countries since 1999 and was selling them in at least 62 countries. The company intended to launch its WR range of motorcycles in India and had hence filed its application for registration of the trademark WR in 2018. It submitted to the court that the registrar passed the order rejecting its application in a mechanical manner without properly applying its mind.
