[Unfair Competition Prevention Act] 2024 (Ne) 10024 <Hibiku Shimizu>
Updated: 6 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Unfair competition law
Topics: —
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-05-09 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[Unfair Competition Prevention Act] 2024 (Ne) 10024 <Hibiku Shimizu>
Although the product contains nicotine at less than 1 ppm, the purpose is “to indicate that it does not contain an amount of nicotine that adversely affects the body or mind,” so indications such as “0 mg nicotine” do not “unfairly” stimulate consumer demand.
⇒ No violation of Article 2(1)(xx) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
(Excerpt from the court's reasoning)
[The plaintiff] argues that analysis at a quantification limit of 0.1 ppm objectively detects nicotine in the product but not in other nontobacco heated sticks, whereas consumers encountering the indication perceive the product as containing no nicotine at all and as superior to other products. However, …the indication is found to be intended to show that the product does not contain an amount of nicotine that adversely affects the body or mind. Nontobacco heated-stick products in which nicotine was not detected by analysis at a quantification limit of 1 ppm (including the plaintiff's product) are all equivalent in the sense that none contains an amount of nicotine that adversely affects the body or mind. The indication is not intended to state the product's nicotine content with scientific precision. Even if there are further differences in nicotine content among nontobacco heated-stick products at a level undetectable by analysis with a quantification limit of 1 ppm, this does not make the indication one that causes consumers to perceive this product as “superior” to others. So long as the product meets that level, indications such as “zero nicotine” and “nicotine-free” are considered permissible under generally accepted social norms. The indication therefore cannot be said to “unfairly” stimulate consumer demand for the product, nor is it found to give the defendants an “unfair” competitive advantage.
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