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 an under-sink type and is usually installed in a place where it cannot be seen, the design does not contribute much to the sales.
⇒”Contribution ratio of the design” was judged 10%.
Article 39(3) of the Design Act (Reasonable license fee)
(1) The product is a standard equipment and it was necessary to deliver the same product as the plaintiff.
(2) The water purifier was adopted because it was a reverse osmosis membrane water purifier, and the design was not focused on.
(3) Since the product is an under-sink type and is usually installed in a place where it cannot be seen, the design does not contribute much to the sales.
⇒The reasonable royalty rate was judged 2%.
<Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)>
https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/618/001618.pdf