＜IP High Court＞ 2007 (Ne) 10032（July 20, 2010）”Container for Molten Metals ” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner won.) Even if a registered design includes public designs in part of it, it is assumed that it will coexist with other featuers and constitute a different design. Therefore, the inclusion of well known or publicly known designs […]
＜Supreme Court＞ 1970(Gyo-Tsu)45（March 19, 1994） “Flexible and elastic hose” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) Easiness to create the design (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. The registered design is not easy to create based on Prior designs. (Design right owner won.) “Similarity” of novelty should be judged from the standpoint of general consumers. In order to refuse on grounds of lack of novelty, the […]
＜Supreme Court＞ 1973(Gyo-Tsu)82（February 28, 1975） “Cap” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should NOT be found. (Applicant lost.) Difference of colors might contribute to “Novelty,” but denid in this case. The combination of colors as pointed out as a difference between the two designs in the court of prior instance (black and yellow in the applied design, dark red and […]
＜Supreme Court＞ 1991 (Gyo-tsu) 139 （February 24, 1995）”Embedded light for ceiling” Case
Prior application (Design Act Article 9(1)) (Conclusion) Rejected as Prior application (Design Act Article 9(1)). In cases where the design in the application for design registration of similar design is similar to another person’s design for which an application for design registration has been filed on an earlier date, except where the application for design […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2004 (Wa) 1099（January 17, 2005） “Yukazuka (floor post)” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The essential parts of the design should be identified by observing the design as a whole and taking into account the nature, use, etc. of the article to which the design relates. Although some of the […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2005 (Gyo-ke) 10134（September 15, 2005） “Postbox” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should NOT be found. (Design right owner lost.) The court affirmed that the Handouts fell under the category of “publications distributed”. When the resistered design and the prior design are observed as a whole, the difference is a partial and weak difference that is limited to “a difference […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2005 (Ne) 10079（ October 31, 2005） “Carabiner” Case
Similarity of “article (goods)” (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s “article” is NOT Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) There may be no design separated from an article. Simirality of articles means that when a registered design or a design similar thereto is applied to an article, confusion may occuer. In this case, the […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2004 (Wa) 8657（November 24, 2005） “Infusion solution bag” Case
Prior use right (Japanese Design Act, Article 29) (Conclusion) Prior use right was admitted. (Design right owner lost.) The defendants had started making preparations for the production of its products before the plaintiff’s filling of an application for registration of the design, and by concluding that the defendants had a non-exclusive license based on prior […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2004 (Wa) 6262（December 15, 2005） “Face puff” Case
Similarity of “article (goods)” (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s “article” is Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner won.) Whether articles are similar each other or not should be judged based on the simirality of the “purposes” and “functions”. Even if the “function” is different, as lon as the “purpose” is the same, it is […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2004 (Wa) 14355（January 17, 2006） “Shopping basket” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is Not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The persons in the purchasing division of a supermarket or a department store, etc. should be regarded as consumers of such shopping baskets and therefore as observers of them. Observers would observe a shopping basket by […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2005 (Gyo-ke) 10679（March 31, 2006）”Connector terminal” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should Not be found because the applied design is too small to be invisible to the naked eye. (Applicant lost.) Even if a small size is invisible to the naked eye, the design is accepted if it is usually observed in a magnified manner at the time of […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2006 (Gyo-ke) 10136（August 24, 2006）”Piano pedal extender platform” Case
Divisional application (Japanese Design Act, Article 10bis(1)) (Conclusion) Divisional application based on the “reference drawing” was rejected. (Applicant lost.) *Under the Japan Design Act, applied design which is not registerd as design right would not be published. “Two or more designs” as used in Article 10-2(1) of the Design Act shall be limited to “designs […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2006 (Gyo-ke) 10088（September 20, 2006） “Metal blind louver” Case
Easiness to create the design (Conclusion) The registered design is NOT easy to create based on Prior designs. (Design right owner won.) In determining whether or not it is easy to create a design, the field to which the design belongs shall be considered. The article related to the prior design is used as a […]
Novelty (Infringement case – Invalid) (Conclusion) Novelty should NOT be found. (Applicant lost.) There are no dofferences between the prior Plaintiff’s product #100 shown in the brousher and the registered design. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/517/000517.pdf
＜IP High Court＞ 2006 (Gyo-ke) 10337（December 11, 2006） “Car stopper block” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) Since the cited defendant’s brochure was a mere color-printed document, the defendant could have made the brochure with a false preparation date, and therefore that the preparation date printed on the document was insufficient to prove the date when it was actually prepared. […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2006 (Wa) 7014（December 21, 2006） “Block mat” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) Consumers (contractors) select products by looking at catalogs or actual products. The catalogs show front-view drawings as product drawings. Whereas the resistered design provides an orderly aesthetic feel, in Defendant’s Block mat, the quarter-circle notches provide […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2007 (Gyo-Ke) 10119（September 10, 2007） “Craft puncher” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) Novelty should NOT be found. (Applicant lost.) It is not reasonable to compare the publicly known design with older existing publicly known designs and to recognize essential features for the purpose of determining similarity between the prior designs and the applied design. The judgment on similarity should be based simply […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2007 (Gyo-Ke) 10107 （November 29, 2007） “Elastic damper” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) A combination of common points between the applied design and the prior design does not have a significant design effect on the determination on similarity. In the additional consideration of several differences between them, when the whole of the designs in the present […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2007 (Gyo-Ke) 10209（December 26, 2007） “Packaging container” Case
Easiness to create the design (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) Since the applied design was created with creative ingenuity from various design choices, it is not easy for a person skilled in the art to create the applied design on the basis of the Prior design 3 by appling the Prior design 1 […]
＜Tokyo District Court＞ 2007 (Wa) 1972 （February 19, 2008）”Bucket tip shroud” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The resistered design has a considerably lower top of the fitted portion as compared with the position of the upper side portions of the left and right tooth plate portions, when mounted on the bucket, closes […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2008 (Gyo-Ke) 10069（August 28, 2008） “Polishing pad” Case
Easiness to create the design (Conclusion) The registered design is not easy to create based on Prior designs. (Design right owner won.) Among the triangular wave zigzag line patterns, there are various line thicknesses and lengths and forming angles of respective linear portions, and there is room for selection, and the width of the groove […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2007 (Wa) 1411 （September 11, 2008）”Coupling horn” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Basically, the hidden shape shall not be taken into consideration when considering similarity. Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) “Use relationship” when only part of the product is visually recognizable from the outside. Since Defendant’s horn is contained in spindle, it does […]
＜Tokyo District Court＞ 2008 (Wa) 1089（October 30, 2008）”Clothes hanger)” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) In the resistered design, a semicircular thin plate is attached to a wire-like line on the upper side of the front side of the neck, whereas in the design of the Defendant’s Clothes hanger, the thin […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2008 (Gyo-Ke) 10184（November 26, 2008） “Wristwatch side” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) <Prior design> ① Mounting portion of the belt connecting portion is planar, ② no pattern on the thickness portion of the outer peripheral edge portion of the glass pressing substantially circular ring-shaped portion + 8 fixing screw portions having one groove therein hexagonal […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2008 (Gyo-Ke) 10185（November 26, 2008） “Wristwatch” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) <Prior design> ① Mounting portion of the belt connecting portion is planar, ② no pattern on the thickness portion of the outer peripheral edge portion of the glass pressing substantially circular ring-shaped portion + 8 fixing screw portions having one groove therein hexagonal […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2008 (Gyo-Ke) 10251（December 25, 2008）”Beer pitcher” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) The applied design is basically formed by a straight line in both the folded portion and the pouring spout, the whole length is long, the pouring spout is large and deep, and has a double substantially V-shaped shape in front view, and when […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2008 (Gyo-Ke) 10401（May 28, 2009） “Fluid pressure cylinder” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) The most common form attracts the attention of the consumer when the aesthetic feeling caused by a form other than the common form is not sufficient to exceed the aesthetic feeling caused by the common form. It is not immediately possible to judge […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2009 (Gyo-Ke) 10036（July 21, 2009）”Rubber band” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) When considering similarity, it is considered the shape when the applied design is used. Submission of a certificate of exception to lack of novelty of design does not constitute an admission of similarity. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/424/001424.pdf
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2008 (Wa) 13282 （July 23, 2009）”Cell container for medical testing” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The essential feature of the registered design is a step which is provided in a manner that it projects nearly perpendicular to the side surface at the level around one-fourth of the height of the container […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2008 (Wa) 5712 （September 10, 2009）”Golf ball” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should NOT be found. (Design right owner lost.) *12/362 of the dimples in the registered design are not hexagon but pentagon. Differences in the specific constitution of the design, such as that there is a small number of pentagonal dimples … do not cause any difference that is […]
Similarity of design (Infringement case) <File wrapper estoppel> (Conclusion) It is prohibited to assert what is contradictory to what an applicant asserted during the application procedure. ⇒Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) Plaintiff, in their opinion during the application procedure, claimed that the applied design was not similar […]
(Conclusion) Defendant’s designs are not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The essential feature of the registered design is the shape of the front wall, which is a smooth curved surface with a downward constriction near the bottom, and a configuration in which this shape is combined with a large wheel and […]
(Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The plaintiff asserts that the heart-shaped three-dimensional shape of the case was an essential feature of the registered design because there were no false eyelashe cases as of the filing date of the registered design that had a heart shape like […]
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should NOT be found. (Applicant lost.) When “Similarity” between designs judged, it is inappropriate to consider that the applied design could be defined by taking into consideration matters other than those depicted in the drawing attached to the application or represented in the photograph, model or specimen […]
Procedural Defects (The applicant did not submit the certificate of exception to lack of novelty of design within the period specified in Article 4.) (Conclusion) The applicant’s procedural defects cannot be amended. (The applicant lost.) The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim by holding that the JPO’s disposition to dismiss the application for the commencement […]
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s OLD design is Similar to the registered design. However, Defendant’s NEW design is NOT Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner win regarding Defendant’s old design.) In the transaction of a measurement-pointindication plate, the consumer considers not only the state of the display at the time of […]
Procedural Defects (Copy is NOT allowed of a priority certificate that must be submitted in the procedure for claiming priority under the Paris Convention.) Cf. <Tokyo District Court> 2009 (Gyo-U) 597 (Conclusion) The applicant’s procedural defects cannot be amended. (The applicant lost.) The priority certificate required to be filed in proceedings to claim priority under […]
Procedural Defects (Copy is NOT allowed of a priority certificate that must be submitted in the procedure for claiming priority under the Paris Convention.) Cf. <Tokyo District Court> 2009 (Gyo-U) 540 (Conclusion) The applicant’s procedural defects cannot be amended. (The applicant lost.) The priority certificate required to be filed in proceedings to claim priority […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2010 (Wa) 4770 (December 16, 2010) “Long-handled scissors” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) The essential features of the registered design are the “shape of the blade part as well as the ratio of the length of the fixed coupling part or the handle part in the entire length”. The design of the Defendant’s Design is identical […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2010 (Ne) 10014 (March 28, 2011) “Covers for underground structure (manhole)” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s designs are not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) In judging whether designs are similar or dissimilar, it is necessary to observe the design as a whole. In this case, it is necessary to grasp the part of the design that is most likely to […]
＜Osaka District Court＞2010 (Wa) 9966 (September 15, 2011) “Manicure nail file” Case
Damages caluculation (Article 39(1)) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) Article 39(1) of the Design Act (Lost profits based on a right holder’s profit) (i) Price of the defendant’s product was much cheaper than the plaintiff’s product. (plaintiff’s product: 500 yen, defendant’s product: 100 yen) (2) Contribution […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2011 (Gyo-Ke) 10239 (December 15, 2011) “Release paper for printing” Case
Easiness of Creation (Article 3(2) of the Design Act) (Conclusion) A person ordinarily skilled in the art could have easily created based on the cited design. (Applicant lost.) Article 3(2) of the Design Act questions the novelty and/or originality of the conception of the design from the standpoint of a person ordinarily skilled in the […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2011 (Gyo-Ke) 10240 (December 15, 2011) “Release paper for printing” Case
Easiness of Creation (Article 3(2) of the Design Act) (Conclusion) A person ordinarily skilled in the art could have easily created based on the cited design. (Applicant lost.) Article 3(2) of the Design Act questions the novelty and/or originality of the conception of the design from the standpoint of a person ordinarily skilled in the […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2010 (Wa) 13746 (December 15, 2011) “Water cleaner” Case
Damages caluculation (Article 39(2) and Article 39(3)) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) *The design of Defendant’s Water cleaner and the resistered design are identical, and there was no dispute. Article 39(2) of the Design Act (Lost profits based on an infringer’s profit) Since the product is […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2011 (Wa) 9476 (May 24, 2012) “Angle adjuster” Case (Partial Design)
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design 2-1 and 2-2 are Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner won.) / Defendant’s design 2-3 is NOT Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) (1) Defendant’s Angle adjuster 2-1 is similar. (2) Defendant’s Angle adjuster 2-2 is similar. (The excised colored red portion […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2010 (Wa) 805 (March 15, 2012) “Tile carpet” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner won.) Carpet tile is an interior product that is laid on the floor for interior decoration. For this reason, in the course of transactions, differences in patterns, textures, colors, etc., are emphasized in catalogs, etc., by showing small […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2011 (Wa) 9600 (June 21, 2012) “Portable thermos” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) ⇒Appeal Court<Osaka High Court> 2012 (Ne) 2216 judged the same. The plaintiff asserts that the fact that the defendant’s design has almost no unevenness on the sides does not make the two designs completely different […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2012 (Gyo-ke) 10042 (July 18, 2012) “Tires for two-wheeled vehicles” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) The three grooves in the applied design have straight edges, and the width of the grooves tapers toward the ends. This gives the viewer an aesthetic impression that the grooves are composed of thin straight lines with a sharp point at one end, […]
＜Tokyo District Court＞ 2011 (Wa) 10705 (June 28, 2012) “Ventilation opening” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) All of the essential parts, i.e., (1) the ratio of the rattle part to the water reservoir part is approximately 7 to 3 in the resistered design, whereas it is approximately 8 to 2 in the […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2010 (Wa) 16066 (September 20, 2012) “Hair Dryer” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) Although the registered design and Defendant’s Hair dryer has common pattern in the shape of the shade portion, the essential part of the registered design is not limited to the shape of the shade portion, and […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2011 (Gyo-Ke) 10159 (November 30, 2011) “Contact lens” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) In comparison with the human eye, the applied design has an aesthetic that gives more natural, harmonious, and gentle impression. In comparison with the human eye, the Prior design has an aesthetic that gives an artificial and mechanical impression by discarding naturalness. […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2010 (Wa) 16066(September 20, 2012) “Hair Dryer” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) Although the registered design and Defendant’s Hair dryer has common pattern in the shape of the shade portion, the essential part of the registered design is not limited to the shape of the shade portion, and […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2011 (Wa) 3361(November 8, 2012) “Cubic Face Mask” Case
Damages caluculation (partial design) (1) Average royalty rate for textile products is 6.1%. (2) Plaintiff invested time and effort in developing this design. (3) This design contributed considerably to the sales of the Defendant’s products. (4) There is a perfect competitive relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, as a result, it was not assumed that […]
Novelty (related to prior arts) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Design right owner won.) Since the concumers of artificial teeth are specialists like dentists, and they select artificial teeth by noticing the difference in small form, such a small difference should be also recognized by them. ⇒Not similar. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2011 (Wa) 529＞(January 22, 2013) “Discharge Lamp” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The registered design intensifies the regular and static impression because the first barrel lower surface is line symmetric. On the other hand, Defendant’s Discharge lamp intensifies the irregular and dynamical impression because the first barrel lower […]
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) Even if a registered design contains the same components as those of prior art, it should not immediately be interpreted as not becoming a essential part of the registered design, because that part may attract the […]
＜Tokyo District Court＞ 2012 (Wa) 3162(April 19, 2013) “Sandal” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is similar to the registered design. (Design right owner won.) <Difference Point 1 (color)> The registered designs does not limit the color. <Difference point 2 (number of disc-shaped members)> The number of rows in the vertical and horizontal are the same. Only the difference is the number […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2012 (Wa) 6771(August 22, 2013) “Tomb” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) Defendant’s tomb and the registered design are different in the essential part and rectangular portion. The parts in which they are similar was generally equipped for publickly known Turtleback tombs. ⇒Non-infringement <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2011 (Wa) 14336(September 26, 2013) “Indicator Light for Game Machines” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Partial Design right) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is similar to the registered design. (Design right owner won.) The Design right holder had many partial design rights for “Indicator light for game machines,” and enforced several ones of them. Other designs were judged invalid, but this resistered (partial) design was admitted valid […]
＜Tokyo District Court＞ 2013 (Wa) 12233(January 23, 2014) “Package for Disc Packaging” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) Because all parts other than the number of the bank-shaped support were publicly known, this number is the essential part of the registered design. The resistered design has 4 bank-shaped support. The Defendant’s Package has 6 […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2013 (Gyo-Ke) 10287(March 27, 2014) “Cell Phone” Case
Novelty (related to prior arts) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) The applied design gives a generally rounded, soft impression. On the other hand. the prior art gives a sharper and flatter impression as a whole compared with the applied design. ⇒ Not similar. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2013 (Wa) 2462(April 21, 2014) “Panel for Construction Use” Case
Prior Use Right (Design Act Article 29) (Conclusion) Prior use right was admitted for a partial design . (Design right owner lost.) Defendant ordered and received the manufacture of the parts (mouthpiece) of the Defendant’s Panel and manufactured/sold it afterward. Therefore, at the latest on the date of receipt of the parts (mouthpiece), Defendant had […]
＜Tokyo District Court＞ 2013(Wa)6920(May 29, 2014) “Dental Implant” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) *This judgment indicated the logic how to identify the “essential part of the design” in a registered design right. Considering nature, purpose, application, function, and usage of the dental implant, the essential part of the registered […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2016 (Gyo-Ke) 10034(September 21, 2016) “Frozen Dessert with Cap” Case
“One application per design” (Design Act Article 7) (Conclusion) Admitted as “One application per design” (Design right owner won.) In order to comply with the requirements of Design Act Article 7 (“One application per design”), the design must be one product in one form. “Frozen dessert with Cap” is considered to be composed mainly of […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2016 (Gyo-Ke) 10121(November 30, 2016) “Inhaler” Case
Novelty (related to prior arts) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) At the end of the mouthpiece portion of the applied design, the circular hole is formed in the center, combined with that the mouthpiece cover portion is transparent. As a result, this portion attracts the user’s […]
＜Tokyo District Court＞ 2016 (Wa) 13870( January 31, 2017) “Wheeled Platform” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) Regardless of the presence or lack of Push Bars, the resistered design and Defendant’s Wheeled plat are not similar, because, when seen in its entirety, there is a different aesthetic impression from these two designs. ⇒ […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2016 (Gyo-Ke) 10239＞(May 30, 2017) “Vehicle with an Imaging Device” Case
Eligibility of Design (Conclusion) The applied image is not a graphic image allowed in the OLD Japanese Design Act. (Design right owner lost.) A “graphic image … for use in the operation of the article” (limited to the operations carried out in order to enable the article to perform its functions) refers to a graphic […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2015 (Wa) 8271(October 12, 2017) “Clothes Drying Stand” Case
Claim for the compensation for an employee design against company (Conclusion) The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. To be admitted as a co-creator of a registered design, it is not enough to simply orivude an idea as an assistant or adviser, but it is required to be involved with the creation. In addition, the creation must […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2017 (Gyo-Ke) 10188(March 12, 2018) “Accessory Case Shaped Camera” Case
Easiness to create the design (Conclusion) The applied design was easy to create based on prior arts. (Design right owner lost.) The applied design has a usage and function as an accessory case, and also has a usage and function as a concealed camera of photographing and recording so as not to be understood […]
Easiness to create the design (Conclusion) The registered design was easy to create based on prior arts. (Design right owner lost.) The registered design is composed of two parts (i) to be attached and detached to chopsticks for the purpose of training infants how to use chopsticks, and these two parts give (ii) an integral […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2018 (Gyo-Ke) 10009(May 30, 2018) “Bolt Cover for a Hollow Steel Pipe Member,” Case
Easiness to create the design (Conclusion) The registered design was easy to create based on prior arts. (Design right owner lost.) The shape of the end of the Prior art 1 is formed arbitrarily so as to mate with the opposite parts (the locking rib of the […]
＜Tokyo District Court＞ 2017 (Wa) 11295(September 21, 2018) “High-pressure Oxygen Capsule” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) It is emphasized in the [Explanation of Design] of the Publication of Registered Design that the door and both ends of the capsule are transparent and that it is possible to look into the bed inside. […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2016 (Wa) 6539( October 18, 2018) “Trash Can” Case
Damages caluculation (Conclusion) No dispute for infringement. (Design right owner won.) The infringer’s profit should be calculated on the basis of the actual sales amount even if the infringer sells at less than cost, unless the infringer’s sales are substantially deemed as the disposal of the infringing products. In order to obtain more damages, a […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2016 (Wa) 12791＞(November 6, 2018) “Lighting Equipment for Testing” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s equipment 1 is similar to the registered design. (Design right owner won.) / Defendant’s design 2 is not Similar to the registered design.(Design right owner lost.) (Defendant’s equipment 1) When observing from the front or oblique front, a user does not recognize the existence of a screw hole. […]
＜Tokyo District Court＞ 2017 (Wa) 40178(December 20, 2018) “Eye Mask” Case
Damages caluculation (partial design) (Conclusion) Infringer’s design is similar to the registered design.(Design right owner won.) Though the registered design and the infringer’s eye mask have many common elements, these elements were shown in publicly known designs. Further, the different point between the registered design and the infringer’s eye mask, “in the registered design, roughly […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2017 (Wa) 849(March 28, 2019) “Electronic Cigarette Case” Case
Prior Use Right (Design Act Article 29) (Conclusion) Prior use defense was affirmed.(Design right owner lost.) Defendant had ordered a third party to make a sample of the alleged Defendant’s product before the date on which the design right owner’s product was released. Given this developmental status of the alleged Defendant’s product, it can […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2017 (Wa) 5011(March 28, 2019) “Nail Clipper” Case
Damages caluculation (partial design) (Conclusion) The damages were calculated at 28% (0.7×0.4) of the Infringer’s profits. No dispute for infringement.(Design right owner won.) The registered partial design (solid line portion) has a significant influence on the aesthetics of the entire nail clipper as it is stands out when placing down or holding it. Therefore, for […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2018 (Gyo-ke) 10152(April 11, 2019) “Electric Toothbrush” Case
Novelty (related to prior arts) (Conclusion) Novelty should not be found.(Applicant lost.) General consumers, which are the main users of this designation, pay special attention to the overall shape of the gripping portion with emphasis on the easiness of gripping and operation. Therefore, as the whole shape is common between the applied design and […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2017 (Wa) 8272＞(August 29, 2019) “Flowing Somen Noodle Machine” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Infringer’s design is similar to the registered design.(Design right owner won.) Before this application, a water-slider-type “Flowing Somen Noodle Machine” which also has a rotator in the center of the tray portion like a running-water-pool-type did not exist. Therefore, the novel feature of the registered design was the […]
Easiness to create the design (Conclusion) The registered design is not easy to create based on prior arts. (Design right owner won.) If a person skilled in the art can apply prior art 2 to prior art 1, the registered design can be reached. However, as a premise that “motivation” is require to […]
＜Osaka High Court＞ 1980 (Ra) 542(September 28, 1981) “Storage Cabinet” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not similar to the registered design.(Design right owner lost.) This case showed the general criterion on how to consider publicly-known designs when determining the main part of a registered design. (This criterion is still being followed by later court cases now.) No special creativity or aesthetic […]
＜Tokyo High Court＞ 1997 (Ne) 404(June 18, 1998) “Self-propelled Crane” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Infringer’s design is similar to the registered design.(Design right owner won.) This case showed the general criterion of similarity between the registered design and an infringer’s design as follows. (This criterion has been followed by the later court cases still now.) Taking into consideration the nature, use and usage […]
＜Tokyo High Court 1984＞(Gyo-Ke) 7(July 30, 1985) “Faucet Fitting” Case
Novelty (related to prior arts) (Conclusion) Novelty should not be found. (Design right owner lost.) A request for an invalidation trial before the JPO by a non-exclusive licensee shall not be contrary to the doctrine of good faith, unless there are special circumstances. When identifying a design shown in a prior art, not only the […]
＜Tokyo High Court＞ 1978 (Gyo-Ke) 30(March 25, 1980) “CUP NOODLE” Case
Novelty (related to prior arts) (Conclusion) Novelty should not be found. (Applicant lost.) As the characters “CUP NOODLE” on the surface of a container is not deemed a “pattern” in this case, these characters do not generate Novelty. There is room for interpretation that the characters lost their original function as a means of communication […]