[Article / Patents] Working an invention in the metaverse / Can “working” in virtual space be regarded as “working” in the real world? (Tadashi Matsushita, Patent, 2025 Supplement No. 31)
1. Metaverse space and the current IP system JPO guidance: Protection may extend to “programs that function similarly in both real and virtual environments (games, etc.),” but in principle does not extend to merely imitating, in virtual space, an article characterized by its shape.
Tokyo District Court, Case No. 2024 (Wa) 70129
[Box-shaped vessel] (Presiding Judge Sugiura) *The defendant denies involvement with the products at issue. ⇒ No "obligation to clarify the specific manner."
[Article / Patents] Terms to avoid in specifications from a translator’s perspective—particularly “jisha,” “jisōchi” and “jisharyō” (Hajime Kuramasu, Patent, March 2025)
1. The problem with “jisha” (one’s own company) and “tasha” (other companies) Problem: They are often rendered in English as grammatically incorrect expressions such as “its own company” or “an own company” (“own” needs a possessive pronoun). Suggested improvement: Use “a company” at the first mention and “the company” thereafter. Consider “in-house” for an internal nuance. Make “tasha” specific as “another company” or “competitor.”
Tokyo District Court, Case No. 2024 (Wa) 70460
[Widening structure for a shield tunnel] (Presiding Judge Nakajima) *Claim requirements not satisfied (the doctrine of equivalents also not established).
![[Trademark] IP High Court, Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10066](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/324a18_283e6252c94948fb853badd2d8661f8c~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_332,h_250,fp_0.50_0.50,q_35,blur_30,enc_avif,quality_auto/324a18_283e6252c94948fb853badd2d8661f8c~mv2.webp)
![[Trademark] IP High Court, Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10066](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/324a18_283e6252c94948fb853badd2d8661f8c~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_319,h_240,fp_0.50_0.50,q_95,enc_avif,quality_auto/324a18_283e6252c94948fb853badd2d8661f8c~mv2.webp)
[Trademark] IP High Court, Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10066
[AFURI / Afuri] (Presiding Judge Hasegawa) ⇒ Similar (violation of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Act). (1) Similarity of concept:
IP High Court, Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10056
[Women's clothing] (Presiding Judge Moritomi) *Inventive step recognized.
Osaka District Court, Case No. 2024 (Wa) 7055
[Taxi dispatch management system] (Presiding Judge Matsuami) *Claim requirements not satisfied (the doctrine of equivalents also not established). "Taxi (information)" in claim element C means individual vehicles (information about them).
[Trademark] Tokyo District Court, Case No. 2023 (Wa) 70505
[Gomisar] (Presiding Judge Takahashi) 1. Around 1992, the defendant began manufacturing and selling commercial food-waste treatment machines under the product name "Gomisar" and obtained trademark registration, but the right expired in 2009. 2. In 1996, the plaintiff entered into a sales agency agreement with the defendant for the defendant's products and sold those products.
[Copyright] Osaka District Court, Case No. 2025 (Wa) 3632
(Presiding Judge Matsuami) The plaintiff, a former professor at Tokushima University, alleged that the defendant's program was the plaintiff's copyrighted work or a jointly owned copyrighted work. ⇒ The very existence of the "plaintiff's program" was not established. The plaintiff lost.
Tokyo District Court, Case No. 2024 (Wa) 70064
[Aerosol for mosquito control] (Presiding Judge Takahashi) *Violation of the clarity requirement. "Adherent particles" means chemical-agent particles formed by spraying aerosol concentrate into the treatment space, which adhere to floor surfaces, walls, etc., remain adhered as time passes, and exterminate or control mosquitoes resting on exposed portions.