Chiteki Zaison Koto Saibansho Dai 4-Bu [Intellectual Property High Court, Fourth Division] July 21, 2011
Japan Intellectual Property High Court
Haisei 23 (Ne) no. 10023 (2011)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Kabushiki Kaisha Yume Kobo (Yume Kobo) (defendant) was a store that sold light and ventilation window shutters made by Kabushiki Kaisha Touei (Touei) (plaintiff). Touei ran into problems with its parts manufacturer, and Yume Kobo offered to handle the manufacture of the shutters itself. A third company, Diri Sangyo Yugen Kaisha (Diri), agreed to supply Yume Kobo with some of the necessary component parts. The three parties entered an agreement containing a confidentiality clause. Yume Kobo later defaulted on payments for the parts, and Touei and Diri canceled the agreement. Later, Yume Kobo and a related business, Kabushiki Kaisha Alumi Kobo (Alumi Kobo) (defendant), began selling shutters identical to those of Touei. Touei brought suit, seeking an injunction against the manufacturing and sale of the competing shutters. Touei argued that Yume Kobo had acquired confidential knowledge from Touei and Diri that was put to use in violation of Japan’s Unfair Competition Prevention Act, though it appeared that the assembly of parts was accomplished by observing the Touei shutters and applying common technical means to reproduce them. The court granted the injunction and awarded damages to Touei. Yume Kobo and Alumi Kobo appealed to the Japan Intellectual Property High Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Takizawa, Inoue, Arai, J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
