[Trademarks / False marking] Osaka High Court, Heisei 3 (Ne) No. 1003 — Choco Krispies
Updated: Oct 9
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Trademarks
Topics: Misleading quality indication
First published on this site: 2026-10-10
Display/classification checked: 2026-10-10
[Trademarks / False marking] Osaka High Court, Heisei 3 (Ne) No. 1003 — Choco Krispies
The appellant argued that Kellogg’s continued use of “クリスピー(R)” on packaging after registration of the Japanese-character mark “クリスピー” had expired falsely suggested registration, contrary to Article 74(i) of the Trademark Act. It argued that a party making such false indications should not receive protection under the Trademark Act or the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
→ The court recognized that the act itself violated Article 74(i) and was subject to criminal penalties. However, the existence of a criminal penalty did not automatically require refusal of civil protection based on the trademark right. In particular, the claim was based on the Latin-letter mark “KRISPIES,” which differed from the Japanese-character indication “クリスピー(R)” at issue. The existence of false marking could not defeat the claim based on the trademark right.
(Excerpts from the judgment, translated; portions omitted)
“3. The new issue on appeal: whether a person who made false indications contrary to Article 74(i) of the Trademark Act can receive protection under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act
[...] The appellant argues that even if the marks used by Kellogg Japan, including ‘チョコクリスピー,’ are well known, their well-known status was acquired improperly and they should not receive protection under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
However, as already stated, the imposition of criminal penalties as a sanction for that violation does not itself mean that the person’s rights are denied civil protection. Moreover, ‘チョコクリスピー’ became well known as Kellogg Japan’s mark through its advertising and sales activities as found above, not through the false indications. The appellant’s argument therefore cannot be accepted.”
Original article (2025-08-17):
Update history
This history records actual publication, display, and classification changes made on this site.
2026-10-10: First published the LinkedIn original on this site and set the classification, article information, and consultation link.
2026-10-10: Aligned the translation link, canonical URL and hreflang with the verified public URLs.
2026-10-10: Updated topic tags. The original article text was not changed.
Comments