[Unfair Competition Prevention Act/Acts Causing Misperception of Quality, etc.] Tokyo District Court, 2022 (Wa) 14148 <Sugiura>
Updated: 1 day ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Unfair competition law
Topics: Misleading indications of quality
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2024-07-16 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[Unfair Competition Prevention Act/Acts Causing Misperception of Quality, etc.] Tokyo District Court, 2022 (Wa) 14148 <Sugiura>
Hair-dryer advertisements such as “1.9 times the hair moisture”
⇒ Doubts about the reliability of the plaintiff's Experiments 1–5
⇒ Claims dismissed
The duty to clarify the specific manner of conduct (Article 6) “requires … substantiation sufficient to regard the filing of the action or the like as prima facie reasonable, from the standpoint of deterring abusive or exploratory litigation and the like.”
*When the “effects” stated in comparative advertising are attacked, a useful litigation strategy is to counterattack the reliability of the plaintiff's experiments themselves.
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
Comments