About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Finance Intangible Assets Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

Japan

JP028-j

Back

2003 (Kyo) 44, Minshu Vol. 58, No.4

Date of Judgment: April 8, 2004

 

Issuing Authority: Supreme Court

 

Level of the Issuing Authority: Final Instance

 

Type of Procedure: Judicial(Civin( �b>

 

Subject Matter: Others

 

Main text of the judgment (decision):

 

1. The decision of the second instance shall be quashed.


2.This case shall be remanded to the Nagoya High Court.

 

Reasons:

 

Concerning the grounds for the kokoku appeal argued by the counsel for kokoku appeal AKAO Naoto


1. According to the record, the outline of the history of this case is as follows.
The kokoku appellant filed a suit (hereinafter referred to as the "Suit" ) at the Nagoya District Court to seek declaration that the opposite party did not have a right to seek an injunction under the Unfair Competition Prevention Law against the sales or export by the kokoku appellant of the products indicated in Lists 1 and 2 appended to the decision of the first instance (hereinafter referred to as the "Products"), on the ground that the act of selling or exporting the Products did not fall under the category of unfair competition prescribed in Article 2, para. 1, sub-para. 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law.
The kokoku appellant argued that the kokoku appellant exported the Products from the Nagoya Port, and therefore the Nagoya District Court governing this place had jurisdiction over the Suit pursuant to Article 5, sub-para. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In response to this argument, the opposite party filed a motion to transfer the proceedings for the Suit to the Osaka District Court governing the opposite party's address pursuant to Article 16, para. 1 or Article 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that Article 5, sub-para. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not apply to the Suit and therefore the Nagoya District Court did not have jurisdiction over the Suit, and even if at all the Nagoya District Court had jurisdiction, the proceedings for the Suit should be transferred to another court in order to avoid delay in the proceedings or in order to ensure fairness for the parties.

2. The court of the second instance rendered a decision to transfer the proceedings for the Suit to the Osaka District Court pursuant to Article 16, para. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that it cannot say that a tort was generally recognized as an act always bringing about the right to seek restitution or right to seek an injunction, that the right to seek an injunction under the Unfair Competition Prevention Law that was claimed in the Suit was only accepted as one of quasi-property rights given only under the provisions of individual statutes, and, therefore, the Suit did not constitute "a suit relating to a tort" prescribed in Article 5, sub-para. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore did not come under the jurisdiction of the Nagoya High Court.

3. However, the decision of the second instance outlined above cannot be accepted for the following reasons.
Article 5, sub-para. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows, giving consideration to the convenience of the parties concerned in presenting evidence, etc., a "suit relating to a tort" to be filed at a court governing the "place of the tort." In light of the purport, etc. of this provision, it is appropriate to construe that the definition of a "suit relating to a tort" includes not only a suit arising from a tort prescribed in the Civil Code but also includes a suit filed by a person whose right or interests are infringed or are likely to be infringed by an illegal act in order to seek an injunction preventing or suspending such infringement.
The Unfair Competition Prevention Law defines the types of acts of "unfair competition," such as the act of using a goods or other indication which is identical with, or similar to, another person's goods or other indication which is well-known among consumers, thereby causing confusion with another person's goods or business (Article 2, para. 1), and allows a person whose business interests are infringed or are likely to be infringed by "unfair competition" to request an injunction preventing or suspending such infringement against the person who is infringing such business interests or is likely to do so (Article 3, para. 1).
In light of the construction of Article 5, sub-para. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure detailed above, both a suit to seek an injunction suspending an infringement by unfair competition under Article 3, para. 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law and a suit to seek declaration of non-existence of the right to seek an injunction constitute a suit prescribed in Article 5, sub-para. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
For this reason, the Suit constitutes a suit prescribed in the said sub-paragraph, and the decision of the second instance contains an apparent violation of laws that has affected the decision. The kokoku appellant's argument is well-grounded and the decision of the second instance should inevitably be quashed. For further examination on the appropriateness of the transfer of the proceedings for the Suit pursuant to Article 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this case shall be remanded to the court of the second instance.

Therefore, the decision was rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices.

 

(This translation is provisional and subject to revision.)