Articles on IP Legal

【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.

【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”.

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

【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.

【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.

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

New Legislation for the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

Decision of the Supreme Court in the Winny criminal case