[Unfair Competition Prevention Act / Imitation of configuration]
Updated: 1 day ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Display and classification checked: 2026-09-30
Categories: Unfair competition law
Topics: Product configuration imitation / Proof of infringement
Published on this website: 2026-09-29
[Unfair Competition Prevention Act / Imitation of configuration]
Case No. 2025 (Ne) 10055 (Presiding Judge Hasegawa)
Substantial identity of configuration denied
The survey at issue did not use close-up photographs of the coats, but had respondents compare overall images of unknown resolution on mobile phones or computer screens. The impression obtained differs from that obtained by actually holding and observing the products.
Only 41.0% to 44.0% of respondents gave a score of 80 or more as "very similar," while 7.5% to 8.5% gave a score below 40.
Wearing the defendant's product with the chin flap attached and the collar raised is also recognized as use "in accordance with the ordinary manner of use." A certain number of survey respondents also answered that they wore it with the collar raised. (Even if the proportion with the chin flap attached was approximately 1% in a survey of images posted on Instagram, as long as images showing that state actually exist, it cannot be regarded as outside the ordinary manner of use.)
Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7509877749256290304/
Related articles and decisions
Updates and corrections
This log starts on 30 September 2026. Display and classification checks are distinct from a review of the legal analysis.
2026-09-30 — Presentation update: added the article type, this change log and a link to consultation options. The existing article text was preserved.
Comments