[Copyright] IP High Court, Case No. 2025 (Ne) 10063
更新日：10月15日
Article information
Article type: Case note
Display and classification checked: 2026-09-30
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] IP High Court, 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/
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.
Intellectual property enquiries
Images from the original AMEBLO article
English translations of the original image text
Original images retained for comparison
Original AMEBLO article
コメント