Legal Updates

【Unfair Competition Prevention Act★】A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court maintained the District Court’s decision, holding that the form of the Appellee’s goods has so-called special distinctiveness and is well-known, and thus falls under the category of well-known indications of goods, etc., and since the form of the Appellant’s goods 1 and 2 is similar to that of the Appellee’s goods in such a way that is likely to create confusion with the Appellee’s products, it is judged to fall under Article 2, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Appellee’s goods               Appellant’s goods 1          Appellant’s goods 2 　 　　 　   Intellectual Property High Court Decision of November 9, 2023 (Case No. 10048 [Ne] 2023―Presiding Judge Miyasaka)   ◆Main text of the case   【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Concerning whether the form of the Appellee’s goods falls […]

Outline of the Trademark Act, Design Act and Unfair Competition Prevention Act as amended in 2023 (Supplement)

1　Process of Amendment Act for Partial Amendment of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, etc. (Act No. 51 of 2023) was enacted on June 7, 2023 and promulgated on June 14, 2023. The major amendments and the effective date are explained in 2 below.   2　Major Amendments and Effective Date     2-1  Enhanced brand and […]

【Unfair Competition Prevention Act★】A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court held that the “GODZILLA” indication (plaintiff’s indication) is a famous trademark of the appellee (plaintiff), and held that the appellant’s (defendant’s) indication for goods or business “GUZZILLA” (defendant’s indication 1) is similar to the plaintiff’s indication and the use of the defendant’s indication 1 by the appellant falls under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and then, the appellant (defendant) has infringed on the plaintiff’s business interests.

Intellectual Property High Court Decision of July 19, 2023 (Case No. 10063 [Ne] 2022―Presiding Judge Shoji)   ◆Main text of the case   【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Regarding whether or not the plaintiff’s indication constitutes an appellee’s (plaintiff’s) famous indication of goods or business. The plaintiff’s indication not only refers to the monster “GODZILLA” […]

Outline of the Trademark Act, Design Act and Unfair Competition Prevention Act as amended in 2023

1  Process of Amendment Act for Partial Amendment of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, etc. (Act No. 51 of 2023) was enacted on June 7, 2023 and promulgated on June 14, 2023. The major amendments and the effective date are explained in 2 below.   2  Major Amendments and Effective Date   2-1   Enhanced brand […]

【Intellectual Property Law ★】A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court held that a provision in an exclusive management agreement between a music agency and performers prohibiting the performers from entering into contracts with third parties for the purpose of performing without permission for a period of six months after the termination of the agreement (the provision in question) is invalid in violation of public order and morals as unreasonably restricting the performers’ freedom to choose their occupation. A case in which the court held that publicity rights and moral rights (rights of attribution) pertaining to the group name (the group name in question) attached to the group of performers shall be held by each member and cannot be exercised by the music agency after the termination of the agreement.

Intellectual Property High Court Decision of December 26, 2022 (Case No. 2022 [Ne] 10059―Presiding Judge Honda)   ◆Main text of the case   【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Validity of the provision in question 1) The provision in question broadly restricts the performers’ activities using their acquired skills and experience after the termination of the […]

【Unfair Competition Prevention Act ★★】 A case in which, with respect to a program which disables a function of software but not “Technological Restriction Measures” themselves, which is used together with the “Technological Restriction Measures” by means of encrypting images, for preventing decrypted images from being recorded and stored, and makes it possible to record, store, and view decrypted images by using a viewer other than the authorized viewer, the Supreme Court found that the program in question corresponds to a program that “interferes with the effectiveness of the Technological Restriction Measures”.

The Supreme Court Decision of March 1, 2021 (Case No. 2018 (A) 10—Presiding Judge YAMAGUCHI)   ◆Main text of the case   【Summary of the Judgment】 With respect to measures, which restrict images from being viewed by means of encrypting images to transmit them in a way that requires decryption by a viewer installed on […]

Legislative Bill for Partial Revision of the Plant Variety Protection and Seed Act

[Note: This is a legislative bill and is not promulgated. We will provide further information after promulgation of the act.]   1.　Outline of the registration of plant varieties for the protection of new plant varieties The Plant Variety Protection and Seed Act stipulates the registration of plant varieties for the protection of new plant varieties. […]

【Unfair Competition Prevention Act ★★】 A case in which the Court affirmed the typical and substantial increase of an amount of a reasonable royalty as a premium to damages to be paid for misappropriation of a famous indication, and awarded a high royalty rate.

The Intellectual Property High Court Decision of January 29, 2020 (Case No. 2018 (Ne) 10081 — Presiding Judge MORI)   ◆ Main text of the case   【Summary of the Judgment】 In calculating an amount of a reasonable royalty based on the provision of Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act which […]

【Unfair Competition Prevention Act ★★】 A case in which the court found that the configuration of the plaintiff’s product is considered a well-known indication of goods or business, the configuration of the plaintiff’s product and that of the defendant’s product are similar to each other as an indication of goods or business, and the sale of the defendant’s product is likely to mislead the public as to the source of product, and held that the defendant’s act of selling its product falls under Article 2, paragraph (1), item (i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and the court issued an injunction against assignment of the defendant’s product and ordered the defendant to destroy its product.

The Intellectual Property High Court decision on August 29, 2019 (Case No. 2019 (Ne) 10002 – the presiding judge Otaka) (The original decision rendered by the Tokyo District Court on December 26, 2018 [case No. 2018 (W) 13381] – the presiding judge Yamada)   ◆ Main text of the case   【Summary of the Judgment】 […]

Big Data Protection under Unfair Competition Prevention Act has just started in Japan

  The Unfair Competition Prevention Act (“Act”) was revised in 2018, and came into effect on 1st of July, 2019. The revised Act is said to be the first law in the world which tries to protect “big data” itself.   Background of the Revision Data is becoming more and more valuable under The Forth […]

New Legislation for the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

I. Background of the legislation Many incidents have recently been reported concerning misappropriation of Japanese companies’ trade secret, especially by foreign entities. To take some examples: i)　Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal (“NSSM”) v. Posco Posco, a Korean steel giant company, allegedly misappropriated NSSM’s trade secrets related to manufacture of steel. A civil litigation was brought […]

Decision of the Supreme Court in the Winny criminal case

Winny is a peer-to-peer file-sharing program developed by a certain Japanese individual. According to the 2006 report by the Recording Industry Association of Japan, more than three million people had tried Winny, and it had become the most popular file-sharing program in Japan. In 2003, two Japanese users of Winny were arrested and accused of […]