Tokyo District Court, Case No. 2023 (Wa) 70083
Updated: 4 hours ago
Article information
Categories: Designs
Topics: Extraterritorial application / Joint torts
Published on this website: 2026-09-29
Tokyo District Court, Case No. 2023 (Wa) 70083
[Body of a slider for a slide fastener] (Presiding Judge Shibuya)
[Issue 1] Where components (sliders) manufactured and sold abroad are incorporated into finished products (bags, etc.) and distributed within Japan, does the component manufacturer bear liability for a joint tort or otherwise for infringement of a Japanese design right?
⇒ No.
Because the manufacture and sale took place abroad, the effect of the Japanese design right does not extend to them under the principle of territoriality.
[Issue 2] Does exhibiting finished products incorporating components (sliders) pertaining to a design right at an exhibition constitute "exhibition for the purpose of assignment" of those components?
⇒ Not in this case.
Where the exhibition is merely a reference display intended to promote sales of other components (fastener elements and tapes), it is not recognized as an exhibition intended to sell the sliders themselves.
(Excerpts from the judgment — translated)
1
… Therefore, even if it were found that the designs of the sliders manufactured and sold by the defendants are similar to the design at issue, since the sales themselves take place outside Japan, in light of the principle of territoriality concerning design rights, the effect of the design right at issue does not extend to the defendants' aforementioned sales, and they are not found to infringe the design right at issue. …
If the defendants were held liable for a joint tort even in such a case, then, despite the acts being acts abroad to which the effect of a Japanese design right does not extend, so long as the results of those acts were connected in some way to an infringing act within Japan, the person who performed those acts would be held liable regardless of the degree of that person's involvement in or awareness of the infringing act. This would, in substance, extend the effect of Japanese design rights without limitation even to acts outside Japan, and would therefore negate the principle of territoriality, and the argument must be said to be untenable.
2
It is appropriate to find that the bags and wallets in question were displayed for reference as examples of products in which the elements and tapes had been adopted, for the purpose of promoting sales of these goods, and that, as regards the sliders, neither sales nor exhibition for the purpose of sale took place at the exhibition booth in question. …
Since exhibition for the purpose of assignment as working of a design, as provided in Article 2, paragraph (2), item (i) of the Design Act, does not include acts whose sole purpose is exhibition, even if the designs of the sliders attached to the above bags and wallets were similar to the design at issue, it cannot be found that there was exhibition for the purpose of assignment constituting working of the design with respect to those sliders.
Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7509860039310905344/
Comments