Articles on IP Legal

【Unfair Competition Prevention Act★】A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court dismissed the appeal of the Appellant (first-instance plaintiff: X), holding that the act of the Appellee (first-instance defendant: Y) of using indications in advertisements for the EH-HA0G model hair dryer (Y’s product), including “nanoe MOISTURE+ moisturizes hair 1.9 times better,” “Amount of moisture generated compared to a conventional device: 18 times,” “preventive effect against hair color fading,” “helping to prevent friction damage” (each of Y’s indications) does not fall under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 20 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

【Tort law★】 A case in which the Appellant had been streaming a “shogi” (Japanese chess) tournament for a fee with permission from the Japan Shogi Association, and the Appellee, as an individual viewer, had been reproducing the moves in the shogi tournament on a board and simultaneously streaming the moves for free to shogi fans on YouTube and other platforms. The Osaka High Court reversed the decision of the first instance court, in which the court partially recognized the Appellant’s request for an injunction and damages on the grounds of the Appellee’s defamation of business (Article 2, Paragraph 2, Item 21 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act), holding that the Appellant’s request for Google and others to remove the content on the grounds of copyright infringement with regard to the live streaming videos does not constitute “infringement of [the] business interests” (Article 3 and 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act) of the Appellee

【Unfair Competition Prevention Act★★】A case in which the Nagoya District Court, using a judgment method similar to a filtration test, denied that technical information disclosed by an employee after abstracting and generalizing the information was of a confidential nature, which is a requirement of trade secrets, and handed down a full acquittal.

【Unfair Competition Prevention Act★★】A case in which the Sapporo High Court denied the confidential nature of information recorded in an electronic ledger of customers, then overturned the District Court conviction and handed down a full acquittal.

【Unfair Competition Prevention Act・Copyright Act★】A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court maintained the District Court’s decision, holding that although the form of the Plaintiff’s goods is recognized as indication of the Plaintiff’s goods, the form of the Plaintiff’s goods is not similar to that of Defendant’s goods; thus, manufacture and sale of the Defendant’s goods does not fall under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 or 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act; furthermore, the form of the Plaintiff’s goods is not recognized as a copyrighted work, and therefore manufacture and sale of the Defendant’s goods does not fall under copyright infringement.

【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.

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

【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.

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