On December 22, 2016, the IP High Court (Tokyo) upheld decision of Tokyo District Court (Case no. Heisei 27(Wa)33398), and ordered dismissal of appeal ruling that:
- Appellant’s good serves as a source indicator due to designs, color, gloss, and texture depicted on external package of the goods, not merely by cube geometry of the package.
- In view of severe difference in design, color, word mark appeared on the package, consumers will perceive such distinctive elements as “configuration of goods” provided under Article 2(4) of the Unfair Competition Law rather than shape of the package itself.
- Configuration of goods is incapable of serving as a source indicator unless it comprises prominent distinction. Overall shape of package composed of appellant’s goods is quite simple and thus a mere fact of identical shape with respective package is insufficient to conclude that the shape plays a role of source indicator of goods in dispute.
Based on the foregoing, the court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss a decision of trial court on the grounds that overall package of appellant’s goods neither corresponds to “indication of goods” provided under Article 2(1)i of the Unfair Competition Law, nor “configuration of goods” under Article 2(1)iii without combination of designs, color, gloss, and texture depicted on the package.
Unfair Competition Law
The term “unfair competition” as used in this Act shall mean any of the following:
(i) creation of confusion with another person‘s goods or business by use of an indication of goods, etc. (which shall mean a name, trade name, trademark, mark, container or package, or any other indication of goods or trade pertaining to a person‘s business; the same shall apply hereinafter) that is identical or similar to an indication of goods, etc. wellknown among consumers used by said person, or assignment, delivery, display for the purpose of assignment or delivery, export, import or provision through a telecommunications line of goods bearing the such an indication of goods, etc.;
(iii) assignment, lease, display for the purpose of assignment or lease, export or import of goods which imitate the form of another person‘s goods (excluding forms indispensable to ensuring the functioning of said goods);
The term “configuration of goods” as used in this Act shall mean the external and internal shape of goods and their associated patterns, color, gloss, and texture, which may be perceived by users when making ordinary use of the goods.
Unfair Competition Law plays a key role in a dispute involving unregistered mark or trade dress. The case teaches us a good lesson.
A coincidence in the shape of package is insufficient in a lawsuit based on the Unfair Competition Law unless the shape contains prominent distinction in itself.
Appeal Case no. IP High Court Heisei28(Ne)10084
Masaki MIKAMI – Attorney at IP Law (Japan)
Be the first to comment on "IP High Court ruled a commonly used shape of package is incapable of serving as a source indicator"