[Unfair competition / Misleading representations of quality] IP High Court, Reiwa 5 (Ne) No. 10061 — “High-penetration nanoe” (Judge Nakahira)
Updated: 3 days ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Unfair competition law
Topics: Misleading quality indication, Damages, Injunctions
First published on this site: 2026-10-10
Display/classification checked: 2026-10-10
[Unfair competition / Misleading representations of quality] IP High Court, Reiwa 5 (Ne) No. 10061 — “High-penetration nanoe” (Judge Nakahira)
*The party bringing the action bears the burden of pleading and proving that a representation is misleading as to quality.
→ A representation based on a reasonable scientific foundation is not misleading as to quality merely because it is not strictly accurate.
(Excerpt from the judgment, translated)
When a party brings an action for damages or an injunction under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, alleging that another party’s representations constitute misleading representations of quality under Article 2(1)(xx), the burden of pleading and proving this rests with the party bringing the action (the first-instance plaintiff). However, if a representation leads consumers to believe that it is based on specific tests or similar evidence, the absence of supporting materials means that it should be regarded as misleading as to quality. Accordingly, if the party making the representation (the first-instance defendant) does not submit supporting materials, there may be grounds for finding that the first-instance plaintiff has successfully pleaded and proved its allegation. In this case, Y submitted experimental reports and other materials, and X submitted results of verification tests conducted at the time of filing the action and at the appeal stage. Whether Y’s representations are misleading as to quality will therefore be examined in light of these materials.
Y’s representations appeared on its website and in catalogs to describe the benefits of using the appellee’s products and encourage purchases by ordinary consumers. These benefits arise from functions invisible to users. There is no uniquely prescribed method for measuring their degree, which may also vary substantially with conditions such as the environment, manner of use and individual differences. The representations also include a notice that results vary by individual. Ordinary consumers viewing such representations would understand the specific numerical values and experimental results as indicating the degree of benefit and the existence of supporting scientific evidence, and would not be especially concerned with whether they are strictly accurate. Given the content and nature of Y’s representations, a lack of strict accuracy does not immediately make them misleading as to quality. If they are found to rest on a reasonable scientific foundation, they cannot be regarded as misleading representations of quality.
Original article (2025-09-08):
Related articles
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 and related-article links. The original article text was not changed.
Comments