Saiko Saibansho Daiichi Sho Hotei [Supreme Court First Petit Bench] February 27, 2003
Japan Supreme Court
Heisei 14 (Ju) no. 1100, 57 Saiko Saibansho Minji Hanreishu [Minshu] 125 (“the Fred Perry Case”) (2003)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
An English company, Fred Perry Sportswear Ltd. (FPS), held a series of registered trademarks in the well-known Fred Perry clothing brand. In 1994, FPS granted a license to Singapore-based Osea International PTE Ltd. (Osea) to produce, sell, and distribute trademarked Fred Perry products in a contractually defined area that included Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia. In 1995, another English entity, Fred Perry (Holdings) Ltd. (FPH)—a subsidiary of Hit Union Ltd. (defendant)—succeeded FPS as owner of the trademark rights with respect to most countries. However, Hit Union held the trademark rights with respect to Japan. In 1996, a Japanese importer (plaintiff) imported trademarked Fred Perry products from Osea, which had outsourced the manufacture of the products to a factory in China—a country that was not part of the contractual territory specified by the license. Hit Union placed an ad in the Senken Shimbun newspaper (defendant), claiming that the goods imported by the Japanese company were fake. The importer brought an action against Hit Union, the newspaper, and the newspaper’s publishing company (defendant) to recover for alleged damages to the importer’s reputation. Hit Union counterclaimed for trademark infringement. The court found that the acts of importation constituted infringement. The importer appealed to the Japan Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Yokoo, Fukasawa, Kainaka, Izumi, Shimada, J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.