[Unfair Competition Prevention Act / Imitation of configuration]
更新日：3 時間前
Article information
Categories: Unfair competition law
Topics: Product configuration imitation
Published on this website: 2026-09-29
[Unfair Competition Prevention Act / Imitation of configuration]
Tokyo District Court, Case No. 2024 (Wa) 70219
(Presiding Judge Sugiura)
(Translation of the quoted judgment)
"… At least difference 3 cannot be described as a trivial difference, and therefore they cannot be described as substantially identical in configuration."
Assessment of difference 3 (the external rear pocket, "ルーポケット")
● The defendant's product has an external pocket occupying a considerably large area in the central part of the product when viewed from the rear. This is a difference that traders and consumers can not only readily recognize visually but that also leaves a strong impression.
● Even if attaching a pocket capable of holding a smartphone or similar item to a bag is itself readily conceivable, its specific dimensions, position and shape are factors that could greatly affect the product's design. Conceiving and adopting a design like that of the defendant's product is not necessarily easy.
● The defendant positions the "ルーポケット" as the brand's "identity" and includes rear views, as well as front views, in product introduction images. This suggests that the defendant positions it as an appeal point for traders and consumers.
● Even if the rear of a bag ordinarily faces the holder's body while being carried, it is readily seen when the bag is set down. Nor is it necessarily invisible from outside while being carried, depending on how it is held. Thus, even if it attracts relatively less attention than the front, it still attracts the attention of traders and consumers.
Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7509882627923857408/
