[Copyright] Case No. 2025 (Ne) 10063
Updated: 4 hours ago
Article information
Categories: Copyright / Unfair competition law / United States
Topics: Governing law / Works made for hire / Licensing / False allegations
Published on this website: 2026-09-29
[Copyright] Case No. 2025 (Ne) 10063
"Mark Gonzales / Angel" (Presiding Judge Moritomi)
(= First instance: Tokyo District Court, Case No. 2023 (Wa) 70127, Presiding Judge Shibuya)
<Applicable law>
Japanese law applies to copyright protected in Japan, and U.S. law applies to copyright protected in the United States.
<Work made for hire under U.S. law denied>
The works constitute neither works made for hire under U.S. copyright law nor works made in the course of duties under Japanese copyright law.
<No transfer of copyright>
D, the representative of Cujo, lacked authority to conclude the contract, and the defendant company was aware of this. Apparent authority under California law is also not established.
<Obligation to return>
The trademarks at issue are included within the scope of the obligation to return under Article 11 of the license agreement at issue.
⇒ Since the defendant company holds neither the copyright nor the trademark rights at issue, sending the warning letter constitutes communication of false facts.
Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7509879940721397760/
Comments