RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/W/89
13November 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4975)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONENFORCEMENT
Replies from Japan toquestions from theEuropean Communities
andtheirMember States1,Hong Kong-China2andtheUnited States3
Thefollowingcommunications,dated3November1997,havebeenreceivedfromthePermanent
Mission ofJapan.
_______________
I. REPLIESTOQUESTIONSPOSEDBYTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIESANDTHEIR
MEMBER STATES
1. CouldtheGovernmentofJapanpleaseclarifythefollowing.Whatistheprevailinginterpretation
of"technical andbusiness secrets" inArticle 281oftheJapanese Code ofCivilProcedure bycourts
andlegaldoctrine inJapan? Does iteffectively prevent thatanytypeofconfidential information would
berequired tobesubmitted byaparty tocivilproceedings against thatparty’swill? Ifso,could the
Government ofJapan please explain howandonwhatlegalbasis suchconfidential information would
beprotected (Article 43.1oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
Itisunderstood thatunder Article 281ofthecurrent Code ofCivilProcedure, "technical secret"
means things which would losevalues incasethesecret might berevealed and"business secret" means
things which would givegrave economic impacts onthebusiness, causing maintenance ofthebusiness
impossible orenormously difficult insuchacase.
Article281ofCodeofCivilProcedureprovidesforlegitimaterefusaloftestimonyandobligatory
production ofdocuments provided forinArticle 312isrestrictive. These provisions ensure thatparties
arenotforced topresent secret information against theirwill. Please refertoresponses 3and4to
theChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement inthisrespect4.
1IP/C/W/80 .
2IP/C/W/81 .
3IP/C/W/83 .
4IP/N/6/JPN/1 .IP/C/W/89
Page2
2. Please explain theprocedure andthelegal basis pursuant towhich aJapanese court hasthe
authority togrant aninjunction preventing theentryintothechannels ofcommerce inJapan ofimported
goods thatinvolve theinfringement ofanintellectual property right, immediately aftercustoms clearance
ofsuchgoods (Article 44.1oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
AJapanese court hastheauthority toissueaninjunctive order based ontherightofinjunction
(Article 100ofPatent Law, Article 112ofCopyright Lawandthelike)oftheright holder ofthe
intellectual property when alawsuit isinstituted bytheapplicant. Inaddition, thecourthastheauthority
toissue aprovisional order under Code ofCivil Preservative Procedures topreserve suchright of
injunction. Please refertoresponses 10and11totheChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement inthisrespect5.
3. Please explain how, inpractice, Japanese legislation implements Article 45.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement withrespect totheobligation thatdamages oftheright holder fortheinjury he/she has
suffered should becompensated adequately.
Aperson whoinfringes arightoftherightholder ofintellectual property knowingly orby
negligence isobliged tocompensate damages (Article 709oftheCivil Code). Inaddition provisions
concerning presumption ofdamages andofnegligence aresetoutinthePatent Laworother lawson
intellectual property rights. Please refertoresponse 5totheChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement for
more detailed information5.
4. Inordering thetypeofremedies described inArticle 46oftheTRIPS Agreement, willaJapanese
court takeintoaccount theneedforproportionality between theseriousness oftheinfringement and
theremedies ordered aswellastheinterests ofthirdparties? Please explain howandonwhatlegal
basis thisisdone(Article 46oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Although there arenoexpressly stated provisions inthelaws, itiscommonly accepted that
court should consider thenecessity tostrike abalance between seriousness oftheinfringement and
theremedies ordered aswellastheinterests ofthirdparties when thecourt orders remedial measures
inArticle 46oftheTRIPS Agreement.
5. Isitthecasethatpursuant totheJapanese Trademark Lawitwould besufficient, withregard
tocounterfeit trademark goods, toremove thetrademark unlawfully affixed topermit release ofthe
goods intothechannels ofcommerce inJapan? Please explain (Article 46oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Inregardtocounterfeittrademarkgoods,thesimpleremovalofthetrademarkunlawfullyaffixed
isnotsufficient forJapanese customs authorities topermit release ofthegoods intothechannels of
commerce inJapan.
6. Inwhat circumstances would anofficial beheldpersonally liable toappropriate remedial
measures foractions taken intheadministration ofanylawpertaining totheprotection orenforcement
ofintellectual property rights? Would apublic authority beliable toappropriate remedial measures
incircumstances other thantheillegal exercise ofpublic power, e.g.where anofficial hasacted
negligently? Ifso,please explain theconditions andthelegal basis forsuchliability (Article 48of
theTRIPS Agreement).
Withregard totheliability tobeheldbyStateorpublic entity, Article 1ofStateRedress Law
provides thatState orpublic entity shallbeliable forcompensation todamages anofficial illegally
incurred toothers knowingly orbynegligence inthecourse ofexercising hisauthority.
5IP/N/6/JPN/1.IP/C/W/89
Page3
Inaddition Supreme court precedents haveestablished thatliability forcompensation tovictims
shallbeheldbyState, notbyanofficial inperson where heincurred damages toothers knowingly
orbynegligence inthecourse ofexercising hisauthority.
7. Aretherespecific rulesinJapanese lawaimed atpreventing, asaprovisional measure against
infringement, theentry intothechannels ofcommerce ofimported goods immediately aftercustoms
clearance? Intheabsence ofsuchrules, please explain howsuchentry isprevented inpractice
(Article 50.1oftheTRIPS Agreement).
AJapanese court hastheauthority toissueaprovisional order under Code ofCivilPreservative
Procedure topreserve theright ofinjunction (Article 100ofPatent Law, Article 112ofCopyright
Lawandthelike)oftherightholder oftheintellectual property uponrequest oftheapplicant. Please
refertoresponses 10and11totheChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement inthisrespect6.
8. Could theGovernment ofJapan please clarify when anotice ofanorder forapreliminary
injunction inaudita altera parte mustbeserved ontheparties affected andwhatthelegal basis isfor
thisrequirement (Article 50.4oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Article 17ofCode ofCivil Preservative Procedure provides thatpreservative order shallbe
served tointerested parties. Furthermore courtrulings donotgointoeffect untiltheyhavebeennotified
tointerested parties under Article 204(1) ofCode ofCivil Procedure andpreservative order under
Code ofCivil Preservative Procedure isoneofsuch"ruling".
Therefore when preservative order ofprovisional injunction isissued, suchanorder istobe
served immediately.
9. Please explain theprocedure andthelegal basis pursuant towhich aprovisional measure to
preserve relevant evidence inregard toanalleged infringement, asreferred toinArticle 50.1(b) of
theTRIPS Agreement, shall, attherequest ofthedefendant, berevoked orotherwise cease tohave
effect, ifproceedings leading toadecision onthemerits ofthecasearenotinitiated within areasonable
period (Article 50.6oftheTRIPS Agreement).
When apreservative order under Code ofCivilPreservative Procedure hasbeenissued, acourt
shallfixacertain reasonable period andorder anapplicant, upon request ofadefendant:
(a) tobring alawsuit onthemerits andtopresent awritten document proving suchafact;
or
(b) where alawsuit onthemerits hasalready beenbrought, topresent awritten document
proving suchafact,within suchprescribed period. Inthiscontext, unless theapplicant
presents thewritten document within suchprescribed period, adefendant mayrequest
torevoke thepreservative order tothecourt. (Article 37(1)(3) ofCode ofCivil
Preservative Procedure). Please refer toresponse 12totheChecklist ofIssues on
Enforcement forgeneral procedure onpreservative order6.
6IP/N/6/JPN/1.IP/C/W/89
Page4
10. Could theGovernment ofJapan please clarify whether there exists anyperiod within which
customs authorities should inform aright holder whohaslodged anapplication forthesuspension
ofrelease bycustoms authorities ofinfringing goods, incases theyhaveaccepted theapplication and,
ifso,whatisthelegal basis forthisobligation (Article 52oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
Although theredoesnotexistanyprovision on"reasonable time", thecustoms authorities make
notification torightholders asexpeditiously aspossible.
11. Istherearequirement under Japanese lawthattheimporter andtheapplicant shallbepromptly
notified ofthesuspension oftherelease ofgoods pursuant toArticle 51oftheTRIPS Agreement and,
ifso,whatisthelegal basis? Please explain (Article 54oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Incases where thecustoms authorities believe thatthereareanygoods thatcorrespond togoods
which infringe onintellectual property rights, thecustoms authorities shallsuspend suchgoods and
taketheidentification procedure toidentify whether theycorrespond togoods which infringe on
intellectual property rights ornot.Inthissituation, thecustoms authorities shallnotify theimporter
andtheright holder totheeffect thattheysuspend thegoods andtaketheidentification procedure.
(Article 21(4) ofCustoms Tariff Law)
12. Please explain theprocedure andthelegal basis pursuant towhich Japan hasimplemented
Article 55oftheTRIPS Agreement.
InJapan, "thecompetent authorities" stipulated inArticle 55oftheTRIPS Agreement mean
thecustoms authorities, andthecustoms authorities themselves initiate theproceedings leading toa
decision onthemerits ofthecasewhen theysuspend goods. Therefore, there isnopossibility that
thecustoms authorities arenotinformed thatinitiation, andArticle 55oftheTRIPS Agreement isnot
applicable toJapanese case. TheDirectors-General ofCustoms shallgivetheright holder andthe
importer anopportunity topresent evidences ortoexpress opinions about theinfringement ofthegoods.
(Article 61ter(1)oftheCabinet Order forEnforcement oftheCustoms Tariff Law)
13. Please explain which measures areavailable inJapanese lawtoensure thatanyinspection
ofgoods detained bycustoms authorities pursuant toSection 21bis, §4oftheJapanese Customs Tariff
Lawiswithoutprejudicetotheprotectionofconfidentialinformation(Article57oftheTRIPSAgreement).
Government officials inJapan including customs officers haveobligation tokeepsecrets, where
theymustnotdisclose secrets theyknow through theirofficial duty. Customs officers shallbepresent
attheinspection siteofsuspicious goods andthusconfidential information iscarefully protected.
14. Article 58oftheTRIPS Agreement laysdown theconditions thatneedtobefulfilled where
competent authorities actupon theirowninitiative insuspending therelease ofallegedly infringing
goods. Withregard tothis"exofficio action" please clarify thefollowing issues:
- Isthere arequirement under Japanese lawthattheimporter andtheapplicant shall
bepromptly notified ofthesuspension oftherelease ofgoods pursuant toArticle 58(b)
oftheTRIPS Agreement and,ifso,whatisthelegal basis? Please explain.
- Please explain theprocedure andthelegal basis pursuant towhich Japan has
implemented Article 55oftheTRIPS Agreement inconjunction withArticle 58(b) of
theTRIPS Agreement.
- Inwhatcircumstanceswouldanofficialbeheldpersonallyliabletoappropriateremedial
measures foractions taken intheadministration ofanylawpertaining totheprotectionIP/C/W/89
Page5
orenforcement ofintellectual property rights? Would apublic authority beliable to
appropriate remedial measures incircumstances otherthantheillegal exercise ofpublic
power, e.g.where anofficial hasacted negligently? Ifso,please explain theconditions
andthelegal basis forsuchliability (Article 58(c) oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Incases where thecustoms authorities believe thatthereareanygoods thatcorrespond togoods
which infringe ontherighttowhich theapplication isnotapplicable (i.e.patent rights, utility model
rights, industrial design rights orcircuit layout rights) andthecustoms authorities conduct exofficio
action, thecustoms authorities shalltaketheidentification procedure.
Theidentification procedure inexofficio action isstipulated inthesame provision andinthe
same manner asthatfortheapplication under Article 52oftheTRIPS Agreement (Seereply No.12).
TheState Redress LawofJapan stipulates thatState hasobligation topayreparation when
officials illegally damage theother parties knowingly orbynegligence (Seereply No.6).
15. Inordering thetypeofremedies described inArticle 59oftheTRIPS Agreement, willaJapanese
court takeintoaccount theneedforproportionality between theseriousness oftheinfringement and
theremedies ordered aswellastheinterests ofthirdparties? Please explain howandonwhatlegal
basis thisisdone.
Incasewhere thecustoms authorities confiscate anddestroy thegoods which infringe on
intellectual property rights, thecustoms authorities consider theproportionality between theseriousness
oftheinfringement andtheremedied ordered aswellastheproperty rightoftheimporter, andmay
admit voluntary disposal bytheimporter. (Article 21(2) oftheCustoms Tariff Law)
16. Please explain theprocedure andthelegalbasispursuant towhich counterfeit trademark goods
shall notbeallowed tobere-exported inanunaltered stateorbesubjected toadifferent customs
procedure, other thaninexceptional circumstances (Article 59oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Inorder tore-export thegoods which areidentified tobegoods which infringe ontrademark
rightasaresult oftheidentification procedure, theimporter shallobtain approval ofexportation in
accordance withtheArticle 2oftheCabinet Order ofControl ofExportation. Assuchgoods shall
notbeabletoobtain approval ofre-exportation inanunaltered stateeveniftheyapply it,there isno
possibility thatthegoods aretobere-exported inanunaltered state. Furthermore, there isnoway
tosubject them toadifferent customs procedures (Article 2oftheCabinet Order ofcontrol of
exportation, Appendix 2-45).
17. Areimports ofanon-commercial nature excluded fromtheapplication oftheborder measures
setoutinPartIII,Section 4oftheTRIPS Agreement, asimplemented bytheJapanese Customs Tariff
Law, irrespective ofthenumber ofgoods involved andtheirmanner ofimportation (Article 60ofthe
TRIPS Agreement)?
Theborder enforcement applies onlytothegoods imported onthecommercial basis, andthus
doesnotapply tosmall quantities ofgoods ofnon-commercial nature carried bypassengers orsent
insmall consignment forpersonal use.
18. Withregard tocases thatinvolve theinfringement ofintellectual property, could theGovernment
ofJapan provide dataonthenumber of:
- lawsuitsthathavebeenfiledincluding theirrespective outcome andtheaverage length
fromthefiling ofacomplaint untilthefinaljudgement;IP/C/W/89
Page6
- injunctions thathavebeenissued (asdefined inArticle 44oftheTRIPS Agreement)
andexplain howsuchinjunctions arebeing enforced;
- provisional measures (asdefined inArticle 50oftheTRIPS Agreement) thathavebeen
granted andtheaverage length toobtain suchmeasures (from therequest);
- suspensionsattheborderofcounterfeittrademark/piratedcopyrightgoodsorinrelation
togoods where other intellectual property rights areinfringed;
- criminal cases including thesentences thathavebeenapplied; whether theyhavebeen
executed; andplease alsoexplain whatkindofinfringement ofanintellectual property
right would beregarded asaviolation ofcriminal law;
- seizures and/or destruction ofcounterfeit trademark andpirated copyright goods.
Furthermore, could theGovernment ofJapan explain andgivepractical examples of:
- howthecompensation fordamages oftheinfringement ofintellectual property rights
iscalculated (Article 45.1oftheTRIPS Agreement);
- whatwould beregarded as"expenses oftherightholder" which havetobereimbursed
pursuant toArticle 45.2, firsthalfofthefirstsentence, oftheTRIPS Agreement and
howtheywould becalculated;
- whether attorney ’sfeescanbereimbursed andhowsuchfeeswould becalculated;
- whether Article 45.2, second sentence, oftheTRIPS Agreement hasbeenimplemented
inJapan andhowsuch"damages" would becalculated?
(Reply toquestion 18,paragraphs 1-3)
According totheAnnual Report ofJudicial Statistics for1996, thenumber ofcivillawsuits
onintellectual property rights which completed thefirstinstances atdistrict courts were431,in112
ofwhich thejudgements were rendered. Among those 112cases, thecourt admitted theplaintiffs '
claims in56cases (which includes three"default judgements" rendered bythereason ofthedefendants '
non-appearance totheoralproceedings), rejected theplaintiffs 'claims in53cases, anddismissed three
lawsuits asillegal.
Thenumber ofcivillawsuits onintellectual property rights which completed "Koso appeal"
(firstappeal) instances athighcourts were87,in57ofwhich thejudgements wererendered. Among
those 57cases, thecourt dismissed theappeal in50cases, revoked thefirstjudgement andrendered
itsownjudgement inseven cases.
Thenumber ofcivillawsuits onintellectual property rights which completed "Jokoku appeal"
(second appeal) instances atSupreme Court were20cases, inallofwhich cases thecourt dismissed
theJokoku appeal.
There arenoavailable statistical data ofthedetails oftheclaims inthelawsuits,
e.g.compensation ofthedamages orinjunctions.IP/C/W/89
Page7
According totheAnnual Report, theactual duration ofproceedings ofcivillawsuits on
intellectual property rights ateachinstance isasfollows:
- Among431districtcourtcasesasfirstinstance,eightwerecompletedwithinonemonth,
18within twomonths, 28within three months, 43within sixmonths, 63within one
year, 121within twoyears, 78within three years, 28within fouryears, 18within
fiveyears, and26overfiveyears.
- Among 87highcourt cases asKoso appeal instance, twowerecompleted within one
month, fourwithin threemonths, fivewithin sixmonths, 35within oneyear,27within
twoyears, 11within three years, twowithin fouryears, andonewithin fiveyears.
- Among 20Supreme Court cases asJokoku appeal instance, onewascompleted within
three months, onewithin sixmonths, onewithin oneyear, eight within twoyears,
fourwithin three years, andfivewithin fiveyears.
Nootheravailablestatisticaldatathantheabove-mentionedonesonlawsuitsrelatedtointellectual
property rights, e.g.,average length fromthefiling ofacomplaint tothefinaljudgement, thenumber
ofissued injunctions, thenumber ofgranted provisional measures, andtheaverage length toobtain
provisional measures, etc.,canbefound.
Please refer toresponses 8and13totheChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement7which show
statistical dataoncivilcases ingeneral (thenumber oflawsuits, pendency period forlawsuit, and
pendency period forprovisional measures, etc.,indistrict court.).
(Reply toquestion 18,paragraph 4)
Import suspension cases byrights
91 92 93 94 95 96
Patent 2 1 4 9 9 4
Utility Model 7 2 18 52 29 22
Design 35 77 117 196 194 107
Trademark 1154 618 390 445 1114 3240
Copyright 76 64 123 125 73 113
Total 1274 762 652 827 1419 3486
Notes:
1. Thetabledoesnotinclude suspensions related topersonal effects.
2. Declarations thatcover plural rights arecounted asplural.
7IP/N/6/JPN/1.IP/C/W/89
Page8
(Reply toquestion 18,paragraph 5)
According totheAnnual Report ofJudicial Statistics, thenumber ofpersons, including legal
entity, involved incriminal cases areasfollows:
1992 firstinstance: copyright 22,trademark 24
appeal (Koso): none
second appeal (Jokoku): copyright 1
1993 firstinstance: copyright 21,patent 6,trademark 34
appeal (Koso): copyright 2,trademark 6
second appeal (Jokoku): trademark 4
1994 firstinstance: copyright 17,trademark 23
appeal (Koso): copyright 4,trademark 2
second appeal (Jokoku): trademark 2
1995 firstinstance: copyright 17,industrial design 2,trademark 32
appeal (Koso): none
second appeal (Jokoku): copyright 2
1996 firstinstance: copyright 13,trademark 47
appeal (Koso): trademark 5
second appeal (Jokoku): none
While Criminal Lawitselfdoesnotspecify infringement ofintellectual property rights, crimes
andpenalties arestipulated inlegislation ofeachintellectual property rightasfollows.
(1) Patent, Utility Model, Design, Trademark
Anyperson whohasworked apatented invention without authority, orundertaken anactwhich
isdeemed tobeaninfringement according toArticle 101oftheJapanese Patent Law, shall be
automatically liable toacriminal penalty according toArticle 196oftheJapanese Patent Law.
Thesame isstipulated inforutility models, deigns, trademarks inArticle 56oftheJapanese
Utility Model Law, Article 69oftheJapanese Design law,andArticle 78oftheJapanese Trademark
Lawrespectively.
"Working"ofaninvention,device,design,and"Using"oftrademarkisstipulatedinparagraph3
ofArticle 2oftheJapanese Patent Law, paragraph 3ofArticle 2oftheJapanese Utility Model Law,
paragraph 3ofArticle 2oftheJapanese Design Law, andparagraph 3ofArticle 2oftheJapanese
Trademark Lawrespectively (seethereference). Theactsdeemed tobeinfringements forpatents,
utility models, designs, trademarks arestipulated inArticle 101oftheJapanese Patent Law, Article 28
oftheJapanese Utility Model Law, Article 38oftheJapanese Design Law, andArticle 37,67ofthe
Japanese Trademark Lawrespectively (seethereference below).IP/C/W/89
Page9
Reference
Patent
"Working" ofaninvention intheJapanese Patent Lawmeans thefollowing acts:
(a) inthecaseofaninvention ofaproduct, actsofmanufacturing, using, assigning, leasing,
importing oroffering forassignment orlease (including displaying forthepurpose
ofassignment orlease -hereinafter thesame) of,theproduct;
(b) inthecaseofaninvention ofaprocess, actsofusing theprocess;
(c) inthecaseofaninvention ofaprocess ofmanufacturing aproduct, actsofusing,
assigning, leasing, importing oroffering forassignment orlease of,theproduct
manufactured bytheprocess, inaddition totheactsmentioned inthepreceding
paragraph.
Actsdeemed tobeinfringements ofapatent rightintheJapanese Patent Lawmean thefollowing
acts:
(a) inthecaseofapatent foraninvention ofproduct, actsofmanufacturing, assigning,
leasing, importing oroffering forassignment orleaseof,inthecourse oftrade, articles
tobeusedexclusively forthemanufacture oftheproduct;
(b) inthecaseofapatent foraninvention ofaprocess, actsofmanufacturing, assigning,
leasing, importing oroffering forassignment orleaseof,inthecourse oftrade, articles
tobeusedexclusively fortheworking ofsuchinvention.
Utility Model
"Working" ofadevice intheJapanese Utility Model Lawmeans actsofmanufacturing, using,
assigning, leasing, importing oroffering forassignment orlease(including displaying forthepurpose
ofassignment orlease -hereinafter thesame) of,articles embodying thedevice.
Actsdeemed tobeinfringements ofadesign rightintheJapanese Utility Model Lawmean
thefollowing acts:
- Actsofmanufacturing, assigning, leasing, importing oroffering forassignment or
lease of,inthecourse oftrade, article tobeusedexclusively forthemanufacture of
thearticle covered bytheregistered utility model shallbedeemed tobeaninfringement
oftheutility model rightorexclusive licence.
Design
"Working" ofadesign intheJapanese Design Lawmeans anyactofmanufacturing, using,
assigning, leasing, importing oroffering forassignment orlease(including displaying forthepurpose
ofassignment orlease -hereinafter thesame) of,articles towhich thedesign hasbeenapplied.IP/C/W/89
Page10
Actsdeemed tobeinfringements ofadesign rightintheJapanese Patent Lawmean thefollowing
acts:
- Actsofmanufacturing, assigning, leasing, importing oroffering forassignment or
lease of,inthecourse oftrade, things tobeusedexclusively forthemanufacture of
thearticle towhich theregistered design oradesign similar thereto hasbeenapplied
shallbedeemed tobeaninfringement ofthedesign rightorexclusive licence.
Trademark
"Use" withrespect toamark intheJapanese Trademark Lawmeans anyofthefollowing acts:
(a) actsofapplying themark onthegoods ortheirpackaging;
(b) actsofassigning, delivering, displaying forthepurpose ofassignment ordelivery,
orimporting, thegoods onwhich oronthepackaging ofwhich amarkhasbeenapplied;
(c) actsofapplying mark toarticles forusebypersons towhom theservices areprovided
(including articles assigned orleased -hereinafter thesame) when providing services;
(d) actsofproviding services byuseofarticles towhich amark hasbeenapplied foruse
bypersons towhom theservices areprovided when providing services;
(e) actsofdisplaying, forthepurpose ofproviding services, articles towhich amark has
beenapplied andsupplied foruseintheprovision ofservices (including articles for
usebypersons towhom theservices areprovided when providing services -hereinafter
thesame);
(f) actsofapplying amark toarticles related totheprovision ofsuchservices belonging
topersons towhom theservices areprovided when providing services;
(g) actsofdisplaying ordistributing advertisements relating tothegoods orservices, price
listsorbusiness papers withrespect tothegoods orarticles onwhich amark hasbeen
applied.
Actsdeemed tobeinfringements ofatrademark rightintheJapanese Trademark Lawmean
thefollowing acts:
(a) useofatrademark similar totheregistered trademark inrespect ofthedesignated goods
ordesignated services, oruseoftheregistered trademark oroftrademark similar thereto
inrespect ofgoods orservices similar tothedesignated goods ordesignated services;
(b) actsofholding, forthepurpose ofassignment ordelivery, designated goods, orgoods
which aresimilar tothedesignated goods ordesignated services andtowhich oron
thepackaging ofwhich theregistered trademark oratrademark similar thereto has
beenapplied;
(c) actsofholding orimporting articles which areforusebypersons towhom theservices
areprovided andtowhich theregistered trademark oratrademark similar thereto has
beenapplied, intheprovision ofthedesignated services, orofservices similar tothe
designated services ordesignated goods, forthepurpose ofusing sucharticles inthe
provision ofsuchservices;IP/C/W/89
Page11
(d) actsofassigning ordelivering articles which areforusebypersons towhom theservices
areprovided andtowhich theregistered trademark oratrademark similar thereto has
beenapplied, intheprovision ofthedesignated services, orservices similar tothe
designated services ordesignated goods, forthepurpose ofcausing sucharticles to
beusedintheprovision ofsuchservices, oractsofholding orimporting sucharticles
forthepurpose ofassigning ordelivering them;
(e) actsofholdingarticlesbearingareproductionoftheregisteredtrademarkoratrademark
similar thereto forthepurpose ofusing suchtrademark inrespect ofthedesignated
goods ordesignated services orofgoods orservices similar thereto;
(f) actsofassigning ordelivering, orofholding, forthepurpose ofassignment ordelivery,
articles bearing areproduction oftheregistered trademark oratrademark similar
thereto, forthepurpose ofcausing suchtrademark tobeusedinrespect ofthe
designated goods ordesignated services orofgoods orservices similar thereto;
(g) actsofmanufacturing orimporting articles bearing areproduction oftheregistered
trademark oratrademark similar thereto forthepurpose ofusing suchtrademark, or
causing ittobeused, inrespect ofthedesignated goods ordesignated services orof
goods orservices similar thereto;
(h) actsofmanufacturing, assigning, delivering orimporting, inthecourse oftrade, articles
tobeusedexclusively formanufacturing goods bearing areproduction oftheregistered
trademark orasimilar trademark.
Thefollowing actsshallbedeemed tobeaninfringement oftheprincipal trademark rightor
arightofexclusive use:
(a) useofaregistered defensive mark inrespect ofthedesignated goods ordesignated
services;
(b) actsofholding, forthepurpose ofassignment ordelivery, thedesignated goods on
which oronthepackaging ofwhich theregistered defensive mark hasbeenapplied;
(c) actsofholding orimporting articles which areforusebypersons towhom theservices
areprovided andtowhich theregistered defensive mark hasbeen applied, inthe
provision ofthedesignated services, forthepurpose ofusing sucharticles inthe
provision ofsuchservices;
(d) actsofassigning ordelivering articles which areforusebypersons towhom theservices
areprovided andtowhich theregistered defensive mark hasbeen applied, inthe
provision ofthedesignated services, forthepurpose ofcausing sucharticles tobeused
intheprovision ofsuchservice, oractsofholding orimporting sucharticles forthe
purpose ofassigning ordelivering them;
(e) actsofholding goods bearing areproduction oftheregistered defensive mark forthe
purpose ofusing suchamark inrespect ofthedesignated goods ordesignated services;
(f) actsofassigning ordelivering, orofholding forthepurpose ofassignment ordelivery,
goods bearing areproduction oftheregistered defensive mark, forthepurpose of
causing suchdefensive mark tobeusedinrespect ofthedesignated goods ordesignated
services;IP/C/W/89
Page12
(g) actsofmanufacturing orimporting goods bearing areproduction oftheregistered
defensive mark forthepurpose ofusing suchdefensive mark, orcausing ittobeused,
inrespect ofthedesignated goods ordesignated services.
(2) TheLayout ofaSemiconductor Integrated Circuit
Article 51oftheActConcerning theLayout ofaSemiconductor Integrated Circuit provides
thatanyperson whoinfringes onalayout rightorasoleuserightshallbepunished penal servitude
notexceeding three years orafinenotexceeding onemillion yen.
Furthermore, anyperson whohasobtained registration forestablishment byfraud shallbe
punished penal servitude notexceeding oneyearorafinenotexceeding three hundred thousand yen
(Article 52).
(3) Unfair Competition Prevention Law
Article 13oftheJapanese Unfair Competition Prevention Lawprovides thatanyperson who
fallsunder anyofthefollowing items shallbesentenced toimprisonment foratermnotexceeding
three years orfined anamount notexceeding ¥3,000,000:
(a) aperson whocommits, foranunfair purpose, anyactofunfair competition described
inArticle 2(1)(I) or(X);
(b) aperson (excluding aperson described inthepreceding item) whoindicates afalsehood
ongoods orforservice, orinanadvertisement orinadocument orcorrespondence
usedforatransaction, which islikely tocause misleading, withrespect totheplace
oforigin, quality, contents, manufacturing method, useorquantity ofsuchgoods or
thequality, contents, useorquantity ofsuchservice;
(c) aperson whoviolates anyprovision ofArticle 9orArticle 10.
Furthermore, inthecasewhere arepresentative ofajuridical person oranagent, servant or
other employee ofajuridical person oranatural person hascommitted, inconnection withthebusiness
ofsuchjuridical ornatural person, anyoftheviolations described inthepreceding article, inaddition
totheviolator being penalized, such ajuridical person shall befined anamount notexceeding
¥100,000,000 andsuchanatural person shallbeliable tothesame finedescribed inthepreceding
article (Article 14).
(4) Copyright
According totheCopyright Law, crimes andpenalties arestipulated asfollows:
(a) Thefollowing shallbepunishable byimprisonment foratermnotexceeding threeyears
orafinenotexceeding three million yen:
(i) anyperson whoinfringes moral rights, copyright, right ofpublication or
neighbouring rights;
(ii) anyperson who, forprofit-making purposes, causes others touseautomatic
reproducing machines forsuchreproduction ofworks orperformances, etc.
asconstitutesaninfringementoncopyright,rightofpublicationorneighbouring
rights (Article 119).IP/C/W/89
Page13
(b) Anyperson whoviolates theprovision ofArticle 60(protection ofmoral interests after
theauthor 'sdeath) shall bepunishable byafinenotexceeding three million yen
(Article 120).
(c) Anyperson whodistributes copies ofworks onwhich thetruename orgenerally known
pseudonym ofanon-author isindicated asthename oftheauthor (including copies
ofderivative works onwhich thetruename orgenerally known pseudonym ofa
non-author oftheoriginal works isindicated asthename oftheoriginal author) shall
bepunishable byimprisonment foratermnotexceeding oneyearorafinenotexceeding
onemillion yen(Article 121).
(d) Anyperson whoviolates theprovisions ofArticle 48orArticle 102(2) (indication of
sources) shallbepunishable byafinenotexceeding three million yen(Article 122).
(Reply toquestion 18,paragraph 6)
Thenumber ofseizures ofcounterfeit trademark andpirated copyright goods areasfollows.
(Theavailable number ofdestruction cannot befound.)
counterfeit trademark pirated copyright
1992: 50,291 47,017
1993: 116,212 41,435
1994: 63,814 84,887
1995: 125,951 60,897
1996: 155,784 73,116
(Reply toquestion 18,paragraph 7)
Indeciding damages incurred byinfringement ofintellectual property rights, acourt considers
veracity ofarguments ofparties ondamages, taking whole purport oforalarguments aswellasresults
oftheinvestigation ofevidences intoaccount (Article 185ofCode ofCivil procedure).
Furthermore, under thePatent andCopyright Law, etc.,presumptive measures fordamages
isavailable asthecasemaybe(Article 102ofthePatent Law, Article 114oftheCopyright Law, etc.).
Please refertoresponse 5totheChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement inthisrespect8.
(Reply toquestion 18,paragraphs 8and9)
"Expenses forlawsuit" should beborne inprinciple bythelosing party under Article 89of
Code ofCivil Procedure. According toArticle 2oftheLawconcerning Costs ofCivil Procedure,
this"expenses forlawsuit" include filing fee,travel feefortheparties tocome onthedateoforal
argument, andexpenses necessary forinvestigation ofevidence liketravel feeforwitness, butdonot
include attorney 'sfee.
(Reply toquestion 18,paragraph 10)
InJapantherearenoprovisionsregardingintellectualpropertyrightswhichauthorizethejudicial
authorities toorder recovery ofprofits orpayment ofpre-established damages evenwhere theinfringer,
unknowingly andwithout reasonable grounds toknow, engaged ininfringing activity.
8IP/N/6/JPN/1.IP/C/W/89
Page14
II. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYHONG KONG, CHINA
Replies toquestions addressed toseveral Members, including Japan
Civil andAdministrative Procedures andRemedies
1. Isitcorrect tosaythatintellectual property infringement cases often endintheinterim
interlocutory stage? Ifyes,whatseemtobethereasons? Isthisdesirable intheinterest ofjustice?
Article136ofCodeofCivilProcedureprovidesthatacourtmayattempttocarryoutasettlement
atanystageofthesuit.Rationale ofthisprovision isthatdisputes incivilcases should notnecessarily
resolved byadecision, rather solution bysatisfactorily compromising witheachothermight bedesirable
forsome cases.
Annual Report ofJudicial Statistics for1996 shows thatout431cases related tointellectual
property rights which hadbeenconcluded atdistrict courts nationwide in1996, 224cases hadbeen
concluded through settlement. Although reasons whytheparties hadreached settlement inintellectual
property cases areunclear, settlement isgenerally valued asaneffective alternative dispute resolution
based oneachparty'sagreement.
2. Incivilproceedings, arethere anyproof facilitation provisions which could create legal
presumptions ofintellectual property subsistence andownership andthuscould excuse therightowner
fromappearing incourt andtotestify these issues? Ifnot,why?
Theprovisions inquestion donotexistintheJapanese Patent Law, theUtility Model Law,
theDesign Law, theTrademark Law, theActConcerning theLayout ofaSemiconductor Integrated
Circuit, andtheJapanese Unfair Competition Prevention Law.
There isnoneedforanyproof facilitation provisions which could create legalpresumptions
ofintellectual property subsistence andownership, because Article 66andArticle 98oftheJapanese
Patent Lawprovides thatestablishments, transfers, andextinguishments ofapatent rightshallbeof
noeffect unless theyareregistered, andthesame isstipulated forutility models, designs, trademarks
andcircuit layout right.
Under theJapanese Unfair Competition Prevention Law, theterm"undisclosed information
(trade secret)" shallmean technical orbusiness information useful incommercial activities, suchas
manufacturing ormarketing methods, which iskeptsecret andnotpublicly known inthislaw
(Article2(4)).Thesubsistenceandownershipofundisclosedinformationarejudgedatthecourtaccording
thisarticle.
Provisions intheJapanese Copyright Lawrelating tolegalpresumptions ofintellectual property
subsistence andownership arelisted asfollows:
- Aperson, whose truename orwell-known pseudonym isindicated inanordinary
manner astheauthor 'sname onhisoriginal work orwhen hiswork isoffered toor
made available tothepublic, shall bepresumed tobetheauthor ofthework
(Article 14).
- Where acontract forthetransfer ofcopyright makes noparticular reference tothe
rights mentioned inArticle 27(right oftranslation, adaptation,etc.) and28(right ofIP/C/W/89
Page15
theoriginal author intheexploitation ofaderivative work), these rights shall be
presumed tobereserved tothetransferor (Article 61(2)).
- Aperson whose truename hasbeenregistered shallbepresumed tobetheauthor of
thework concerned (Article 75(3)).
Under these presumptive provisions, arightshallbeconsidered asbeing existent unless the
opposite party proves factscontradictory tosuchexistence. Inthecasewhere theopposite party were
successful indisproof, therightholder must prove existence oftheright. Inaddition, presumptive
provisions donotexempt theparties from appearing incourt.
Criminal Procedures
3. Does anyintellectual property enforcement agency havethelegal power toseizeandforfeit
suspected infringing articles, whether ornotacharge hasbeenlaid? Ifnot,why?
Thepolice hasthelegal power toseize andforfeit suspected infringing articles, whether or
notacharge hasbeenlaid,inthelightoftheprinciple ofenforcement activities based onawarrant
issued byjudicial authorities (Articles 33,35oftheConstitution ofJapan).
4. Isthere aspecialized criminal intellectual property enforcement agency? Ifnot,whatisthe
rationale?
There isnospecialized criminal intellectual property enforcement agency inthepolice, because
sections incharge ofcommunity safety police matters ineachprefectural police orpolice station
nationwide arecharged withintellectual property enforcement within theirnormal duty.
5. Incriminal proceedings, arethere anyproof facilitation provisions which could create legal
presumptions ofintellectual property subsistence andownership andthuscould excuse therightowner
fromappearing incourt andtotestify these issues? Ifnot,why?
Theanswer isthesame asquestion 2,forcriminal proceedings.
Concerning undisclosed information, theprovisions inquestion donotexistintheJapanese
Unfair Competition Prevention Lawbecause nopenal provision applies totheunfair actsconcerning
undisclosed information.
Reply toquestion addressed toJapan only
Isparallel import ofarticles infringing intellectual property rights (especially copyright) a
criminal offence? Ifyes,please quote therelevant legislation orhallmark cases.
Under theJapanese Copyright Law, importation intothiscountry, fordistribution, ofobjects
made byanactwhich would constitute aninfringement onmoral rights, copyright, rightofpublication
orneighbouring rights iftheyweremade inthiscountry atthetimeofsuchimportation shallbedeemed
toconstitute aninfringement (Article 113)andmight beacriminal offence (Article 119). These
provisions areapplicable toparallel import.
Inaddition, importation ofarticles infringing industrial property rights constitutes acriminal
offence tobepenalized inJapan (Articles 2(3)(i), 68and196ofthePatent Law; Articles 2(3), 16
and56oftheUtility Model law;Articles 2(3),23and69oftheIndustrial Design Law; Articles 2(3)(ii),
25and78oftheTrademark Law).IP/C/W/89
Page16
III. REPLIES TOTHE QUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
General Obligations
1. Please describe briefly theprocedure thatmustbefollowed byaforeign party toinitiate an
enforcementprocedureineachofthecourtsandadministrativebodiesidentifiedinresponsetoquestion1
ofthe"Checklist ofIssues onEnforcement" andcitethelegalauthorities establishing those procedures.
Lawsuit shallbebrought byfiling acomplaint inwhich theparties, legalrepresentative, object
oftheclaim andthecause areentered withthecourt (Articles 223,224ofCode ofCivil Procedure).
Inaddition tothatfiling feeisrequired (Article 228Code ofCivil Procedure).
Asforthecontrol procedure bytheadministration authorities, anyrightholders mayrequest
thecustoms authorities tosuspend theimportation ofthegoods which infringe ontheirtrademark right
orcopyright bylodging anapplication written inJapanese withthecustoms authorities. Incaseof
thegoods which infringe onpatent right, utility model right, design rightorcircuit layout right, any
rightholder maysubmit adocument written inJapanese tothecustoms authorities, which provides
withthecustoms authorities information forfacilitating theirexofficio action (Article 21bisofthe
Customs Tariff Law).
2. Please identify anyrequirement thataforeign party mustmeettoinitiate aproceeding inthe
courts andadministrative bodies identified inanswer toquestion 1thatisnotrequired ofanational
orresident ofJapan andcitethelegal authorities providing forthose differences.
Requirements forbringing alawsuit asstated inanswer toquestion 1arethesame whether
theparties areJapanese orforeigners.
Therightholder whoisabletolodge anapplication withthecustoms authorities orsubmit
adocumentwhichprovideswiththecustomsauthoritiesinformationisnotlimitedtoJapaneseorresident
ofJapan.
3. Articles 41.1and48oftheTRIPS Agreement require establishment ofsafeguards against abuse
ofjudicial andadministrative enforcement procedures, including provision foradequate compensation
forinjury suffered because ofsuchabuse. Please describe themeans available under thelawofJapan
toprevent abuse ofjudicial andadministrative procedures ortoremedy damages suffered asaresult
ofsuchabuse andcitethelegal authorities forthose means.
InJapan, itisunderstood thatthedefendant canfilefordamages against theplaintiff when
thelawsuit brought bytheplaintiff isdeemed illegal based onwilfulness ornegligence under Article 709
ofCivil Code.
4. Please explain anyprovisions intheenforcement system inJapan thatensure expeditious
remedies. Inaddition, please explain whatprovisions areavailable toprevent deliberate delays by
theparties toaproceeding andindicate thecircumstances inwhich suchprovisions willbeapplied.
Althoughatime-limitforfinalizingalawsuitisnotspecifiedintheLaw,theprovisionauthorizing
apresiding judge tosetthedateoforalargument exofficio (Article 152(1)(2) ofCode ofCivil
Procedure), etc.,mayensure expeditious remedies.
Furthermore, acourtmayreject, uponrequest orexofficio, offensive ordefensive means which
theparties havepresented outoftimeknowingly orbyagross negligence before thecourt when such
anactmight cause delay oftheconclusion ofthecase. (Article 139(1) ofCode ofCivil Procedure)IP/C/W/89
Page17
TheDirector-General ofCustoms conducts theidentification procedure onthegoods which
aresuspicious toinfringe onintellectual property rights, andthere isnopossibility thatsuchgoods
arepermitted tobeimported except when theyareidentified asgoods which doesnotinfringe on
intellectual property rights ortherightholder permits theimportation ofthegoods. When thegoods
areidentified asoneswhich infringe onintellectual property rights, theDirector-General ofCustoms
mayconfiscate anddestroy themororder re-exportation ofthegoods totheimporter. Theidentification
procedureshouldbeconcludedwithinonemonth,asabenchmark,fromtheinitiationoftheidentification
procedure, andifthisprocedure isnotfinished within onemonth, thecustoms authorities shallnotify
theimporter thereason why.
5. Article 41.3oftheTRIPS Agreement requires thatdecisions onthemerits ofacasepreferably
beinwriting, thebetter todetermine thereasoning onwhich thedecision isbased. Please statewhether
judges oradministrative officials mustrender theirdecisions inwriting andcitethelegal authorities
requiring suchwritten opinions.
Acourt shalldescribe adecision, facts, issues, andreasons, etc.inwriting atrendering a
judgement (Article 191(1) ofCode ofCivil Procedure).
When thecustoms authorities identify thatthegoods infringe ordonotinfringe onintellectual
property rights, thecustoms authorities sendadocument which notify oftheimporter andtheright
holder theresult oftheidentification procedure (Article 21(6) oftheCustoms Tariff Law).
6. Article 41.3alsorequires thatdecisions onthemerits ofacasebebased onlyonevidence in
respect ofwhich parties hadanopportunity tobeheard. Please explain whatfactors maybeconsidered
byajudge oradministrative official inrendering adecision andcitethelegalauthorities establishing
thebasis onwhich judges andadministrative officials mayreach decisions.
Acourt shallconsider veracity ofarguments ofparties onfacts, taking whole purport oforal
arguments (aprocedure bothparties areentitled tobeheard bythecourt) aswellasresults ofthe
investigation ofevidences intoaccount (Article 185ofCode ofCivil Procedure).
Article 61ter(2)oftheCabinet Order forEnforcement oftheCustoms Tariff Lawstipulates
thatwhen thecustoms authorities usesubmitted evidences forthefoundation oftheidentification, they
shallgivetherightholder andtheimporter anopportunity toexpress opinions about suchevidences.
7. Article 41.4obligates WTO Members toprovide forjudicial review ofcertain judicial and
administrative decisions inintellectual property enforcement proceedings. Please describe whatlegal
limitations, ifany,areplaced upon theability ofaparty toanintellectual property enforcement
proceeding tohavebothprocedural rulings andfinaldecisions reviewed byaseparate judicial authority,
andcitethelegal authorities providing forsuchreviews.
Adecision rendered byasummary court oradistrict court asafirstinstance maybeappealed
toahigher court (Article 360ofCode ofCivilProcedure). Adecision ofanappellate court mayfurther
beappealed byreason ofcontradiction oftheConstitution, orofthelawclearly affecting thedecision
(Article 394ofCode ofCivil Procedure). Please refer toresponse 1oftheChecklist ofIssues on
Enforcement forappellate court inspecific cases9.
9IP/N/6/JPN/1.IP/C/W/89
Page18
Civil andAdministrative Procedures andRemedies
8. Article 42requires thatdefendants benotified ofenforcement proceedings brought against them.
Please describe theprocedures followed bycourts fornotifying defending parties regarding proceedings
thathavebeeninitiated against them, indicate theinformation provided regarding theproceeding and
citethelegal authorities establishing these procedures.
When alawsuit hasbeenfiledthecomplaint (seereply toquestion 1)shall beserved toa
defendant byacourt (Article 229ofCode ofCivil Procedure).
9. Under Article 42,parties aretobeentitled tosubstantiate claims andpresent relevant evidence.
Please describe anylimitations under thelawofJapan onaparty’sability tosubstantiate aclaim or
topresent relevant evidence andcitethelegal authority providing suchlimitations.
Parties are,inprinciple, entitled topresent offensive ordefensive means before acourt until
closing oforalarguments (Article 137ofCode ofCivilProcedure). Exceptions tothisprinciple include
offensive ordefensive means presented outoftimeknowingly orbynegligence (seeArticle 139(1)
ofCode ofCivil Procedure asreferred tointhereply toquestion 4.
10. Article 42requires, withonenarrow exception, thatthere beameans toidentify andprotect
confidential information during intellectual property enforcement proceedings. InIP/N/6/JPN/1, Japan
states that"there arenocircumstances under which confidential information mayberequired tobe
produced" andtherefor protection forconfidential information isassured. Inmany cases, however,
parties mustprovide financial information, forexample, toshow theextent ofharm ormustprovide
technical information toprove theexistence ofatrade secret. Such information mustbeprotected
inaccordance withArticle 42.Please describe themeans provided under thelawofJapan forparties
toidentify suchinformation andhaveitprotected.
Response 4totheChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement10asreferred tointhisquestion explains
thatnoparties areforced toproduce document containing confidential information "against theirwill".
With regard to"financial information toshow theextent ofharm" or"technical information
toprove theexistence ofatrade secret", there arenospecific provisions toprotect secrecy contained
inbusiness orprofessional information presented bytheparties before thecourtinthecourse oflitigation
under thecurrent Code ofCivil Procedure. Itisbecause theConstitution ofJapan (Article 82)strictly
prescribes theexceptions totheprinciple ofopenness ofthecourt procedure. Asaresult, court
proceedings should beconducted before thecourtopentothepublic eventhough business orprofessional
information aredisclosed. Thisconstitutes exception asprovided forby"unless thiswould becontrary
toexisting constitutional requirements" inArticle 42oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Provisions ontrade secret inCode ofCivil Procedure asrecently amended areasfollows for
information.
InJapan alegislation amending thecurrent Code ofCivil Procedure entirely hasbeenenacted
inJune1996andpromulgated. (However thenewCode ofCivilProcedure istogointoeffect asfrom
thedateprescribed byGovernment Ordinance, which iswithin twoyears fromthepromulgation and
thenewCode hasnotyetenforced asofOctober 1997.) InthenewCode ofCivilProcedure aprovision
torestrict theinspection oflawsuits records hasbeencreated soastoprotect trade secrets recorded
inlawsuits records bypreventing them from being leaked through inspection.
10IP/N/6/JPN/1.IP/C/W/89
Page19
11. Article 43.1oftheTRIPS Agreement requires thatjudicial officials beabletoorder aparty
toanintellectual property enforcement proceeding toproduce relevant evidence inthatparty’scontrol
identified bytheopposing party when thelatter party haspresented reasonably available evidence in
support ofitsclaims. InIP/N/6/JPN/1, Japan states thatparties mayrefuse toproduce documents
thatajudge hasordered themtoproduce ifsuchparty has"legitimate reasons". Please describe what
areconsidered "legitimate reasons".
Under Article 335ofCode ofCivil Procedure asreferred toinresponse 3totheChecklist
ofIssues onEnforcement11,acourt has,uponrequest oftheparty, theauthority toorder theopposite
party topresent object inorder forthecourt toinspect aslongastheopposite party hasnolegitimate
reasons torefuse. "Inspection oftheobject" hereisnotdocumentary evidence butevidential material
intheformofrecognitionobtainedbyajudgethroughinspectingcharacteristicsofobjectsorphenomena,
etc.
There arenoestablished precedents oftheSupreme Court considering themeaning "legitimate
reasons ofrefusal" inArticle 335ofCode ofCivil Procedure. Itistheoretically understood thatsuch
cases aswhere theinspection might threaten theparty ornearrelatives tobeprosecuted orpunished,
orwhere confidential information obtained through thejoboftheparty (public orprivate) ortechnical
orbusiness secret oftheparty maybeleaked, constitute "legitimate reasons ofrefusal".
12. Article 44.1requires thatjudicial officials beabletoenjoin orotherwise prevent infringing
activity byaparty, including bypreventing theentryofinfringing goods intothechannels ofcommerce
intheirjurisdiction. InIP/N/6/JPN/1, Japan identifies provisions forinjunctions inconnection with
patents,trademarks,industrialdesigns,copyrights,andintegratedcircuitlayoutdesigns.Pleasedescribe
authority ofthejudges toorder parties tostopviolations ofrights inundisclosed information andto
prevent goods resulting fromsuchviolations fromentering thechannels ofcommerce, citing therelevant
legal authorities.
Thejudgements toprevent orsuspend theunfair actsconcerning undisclosed information are
made bycourtdecision when requirement under Article 3oftheJapanese Unfair Competition Prevention
Lawismet.
13. Article 44.2provides anexception totherequirement inparagraph 1forgovernment useor
usebythird parties authorized bythegovernment, limiting theremedy forinfringement topayment
ofadequate remuneration asprovided inArticle 31(h). Please describe anysuchlimitations onremedies
inthelawsofJapan andcitethelegal authorities providing forthose limitations.
Japan does notrecognize thegovernment useorusebythird parties authorized bythe
government. InJapanese legislation, there isnostipulation limiting theremedy forinfringement to
payment ofadequate remuneration asprovided inArticle 31(h) norlegalauthorities providing forthose
limitations.
14. Article 45.1requires thatjudicial officials beabletoorder aninfringer topaytherightholder
damages adequate tocompensate fortheinjury caused bytheinfringement. InIP/N/6/JPN/1, Japan
identifies provisions fordamages inconnection withpatents, trademarks, industrial designs, copyrights,
andintegrated circuit layout designs. Please describe authority ofthejudges toorder parties to
compensate forviolations ofrights inundisclosed information andtoprevent goods resulting fromsuch
violations fromentering thechannels ofcommerce, citing therelevant legalauthorities. Please explain
11IP/N/6/JPN/1.IP/C/W/89
Page20
thefactors considered inestablishing theamount ofthecompensation andcitethelegal authorities
authorizing suchcompensation orders.
Thejudgements tocompensate fordamages which result from theunfair actsconcerning
undisclosed information aremade bycourt decision when requirement under Article 4oftheJapanese
Unfair Competition Prevention Lawismet.
Asreferred tointheanswer toquestion 6,acourtshallconsider veracity ofarguments ofparties
onfacts, taking whole purport oforalarguments (aprocedure bothparties areentitled tobeheard
bythecourt) aswellasresults oftheinvestigation ofevidences intoaccount (Article 185ofCode of
Civil Procedure).
Article 709ofCivil Code provides forcompensation fordamages ingeneral, andArticle 5
ofPrevention ofUnfair Competition Lawprovides forpresumption oftheamount ofdamages.
15. Article 45.2requires thatjudges beauthorized toorder payment ofarightholder 'sexpenses,
including legal fees. InIP/N/6/JPN/1, Japan states thatcourt costs areborne bythelosing party.
Please describe thefactors considered inestablishing suchcosts, indicate whether lawyers ’feesare
included, andcitethelegal authorities authorizing suchpayments.
"Expenses forlawsuit" tobeborne bythelosing party under Article 89ofCode ofCivil
Procedure includes filing fee,travel feefortheparties tocome onthedateoforalargument, and
expenses necessary forinvestigation ofevidence liketravel feeforwitness, butdonotinclude attorney 's
fee,according toArticle 2oftheLawconcerning Costs ofCivil Procedure.
16. Article 46requires thatjudges officials beauthorized toorder, incertain circumstances, other
remedies, including disposal ofgoods outside commercial channels ordestruction ofgoods and
destruction ofmaterials andimplements thepredominant useofwhich isthecreation ofinfringing goods.
InIP/N/6/JPN/1, Japan identifies provisions forsuchother remedies inconnection withpatents,
trademarks, industrial designs, copyrights, andintegrated circuit layout designs. Please describe
authority ofthejudges toorder suchremedies inconnection withviolations ofrights inundisclosed
information andtoprevent goods resulting fromsuchviolations fromentering thechannels ofcommerce,
citing therelevant legalauthorities. Please explain thefactors considered inestablishing theamount
ofthecompensation andcitethelegal authorities authorizing suchcompensation orders.
TheJapaneseUnfairCompetitionPreventionLawprovidesthatapersonwhosebusinessinterests
areinfringed orarelikely tobeinfringed byunfair competition, isentitled, torequest thedestruction
oftheobjects which constitute theactofinfringement (including objects created bytheactof
infringement) oranyother actsnecessary toprevent orsuspend theinfringement (Article 3(2)). The
judgements toorder suchremedies aremade bycourt decision when requirement under thisarticle
ismet.
Asreferred tointheanswer toquestion 6,acourtshallconsider veracity ofarguments ofparties
onfacts, taking whole purport oforalarguments (aprocedure bothparties areentitled tobeheard
bythecourt) aswellasresults oftheinvestigation ofevidences intoaccount (Article 185ofCode of
Civil Procedure).
Article 709ofCivil Code provides forcompensation fordamages ingeneral, andArticle 5
ofPrevention ofUnfair Competition Lawprovides forpresumption oftheamount ofdamages.
17. Article 48.2permits WTO Members toexempt public authorities andofficials fromliability
from remedies onlywhere their actions were taken orintended ingood faithincarrying outtheirIP/C/W/89
Page21
responsibilities under thelaw.Please explain anyexemption provided public authorities andofficials
fromliability forabuse ofenforcement procedures, describe thecircumstances inwhich suchlimitations
would notapply, andcitethelegal authorities granting suchexemptions.
Withregard totheliability tobeheldbyStateorpublic entity, Article 1ofStateRedress Law
provides thatState orpublic entity shallbeliable forcompensation todamages anofficial illegally
incurred toothers knowingly orbynegligence inthecourse ofexercising hisauthority. Inother words
State orpublic entity doesnotassume liability fordamages unless anofficial conducts hisdutywith
wilfulness ornegligence.
Inaddition Supreme court precedents haveestablished thatliability forcompensation tovictims
shallbeheldbyState, notbyanofficial inperson where heincurred damages toothers knowingly
orbynegligence inthecourse ofexercising hisauthority.
Provisional Measures
18. Article 50.2requires thatjudicial authorities beauthorized togrant provisional remedies when
adelay islikely tocause "irreparable harm" totherightholder. Please describe briefly whatisrequired
bytheauthorities toestablish "irreparable harm" totheright holder.
Seereply toquestion 19.
19. Article 50.2alsorequires thatjudicial authorities beauthorized togrant provisional remedies
when there isa"demonstrable riskofevidence being destroyed". Please describe briefly whatfactors
areconsideredbythecompetentauthoritiesindeterminingwhenthereisa"demonstrableriskofevidence
being destroyed".
Astocivilprovisionalmeasures,CodeofCivilPreservativeProcedureprovidesfor"provisional
orders regarding objects concerned" and"provisional orders deciding aprovisional status" asprovisional
measures which courts mayorder.
"Provisional orders regarding objects concerned" maybeissued where acourt concludes that
anapplicant would beunable toexercise, orwould come tofaceextreme difficulties inexercising,
hisrightduetoanychange inthesituation oftheobjects concerned (Article 23(1) ofCode ofCivil
Preservative Procedure).
"Provisional orders deciding aprovisional status" maybeissued where acourt concludes that
suchanorder isnecessary toavoid extreme damage orimminent danger which anapplicant would
suffer regarding thelegalrelations atissue (Article 23(2) ofCode ofCivil Preservative Procedure).
Aprovisional order thecourt issues toprohibit thedisposal ofarticles infringing intellectual
property rights hasaneffect topreserve evidence relating totheinfringement.
Please refertoresponses 10and11totheChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement12withregard
toprovisional measures based onCode ofCivil Preservative Procedures.
12IP/N/6/JPN/1.IP/C/W/89
Page22
20. Article 50.3requires thatjudicial authorities beauthorized torequire anapplicant toprovide
evidence toestablish withasufficient degree ofcertainty thattheapplicant istherightholder andthat
infringement hasoccurred orisimminent. Withrespect toeachintellectual property right, please
describe theevidence required byright holders toestablish ownership.
Whenthepartiesrequestaprovisionalorder,theymustpreliminarilyprovetherightsorrelations
thereof tobepreserved (Article 13ofCode ofCivil Preservative Procedure). "Preliminary proof
(Somei)" isdonebypresenting suchevidence asmaking thejudge findthealleged factspresumable,
which islower degree ofproof thanrequired athearing onthemerits.
Evidence theparties present, asapreliminary proof, toidentify therightholder ofintellectual
property rights depend oncases andtherefore itisimpossible tocategorize whatsuffice tobesuch
evidence.
21. Article 50.3requires thatjudicial authorities beauthorized toprovide asecurity orequivalent
assurance toprotect thedefendant. Dojudges inJapan have such authority andunder what
circumstances dotheyexercise it?
Under Code ofCivil Preservative Procedures, acourt isauthorized torequire anapplicant
toprovide asecurity ornotwhen itissues thepreservative order (Article 14ofCode ofCivilPreservative
Procedures).
Although nostatistical numbers areavailable withregard tocases requiring asecurity ornot,
generally speaking, itseems rareforthecourt toissueapreservative order without requiring asecurity
totheapplicant.
22. Article 50.4requires thatparties benotified when provisional measures havebeenadopted
inaudita altera parte. Please describe briefly theprocedures followed fornotifying affected parties
andstatethetimewithin which suchnotice musttakeplace.
Article 17ofCode ofCivil Preservative Procedure provides thatpreservative order shallbe
served tointerested parties. Furthermore courtrulings donotgointoeffect untiltheyhavebeennotified
tointerested parties under Article 204(1)ofCode ofCivil Procedure andpreservative order under
Code ofCivil Preservative Procedure isoneofsuch"ruling".
Therefore when preservative order ofprovisional injunction isissued, suchanorder istobe
served immediately.
23. Article 50.4alsorequires thatdefendants beafforded areview process todetermine whether
provisional measures should bemodified, confirmed, orrevoked. Please describe briefly theprocedures
adefendant must follow toinitiate review proceedings andidentify theperiod within which such
proceedings mustbeinitiated.
Thedefendant mayraise anobjection against thepreservative order thecourt hasissued.
(Article 26ofCode ofCivil Preservative Procedure) There arenospecific timelimittoraisesuch
anobjection.
Inaddition, upon request from thedefendant, thecourt issuing theorder shallfixacertain
reasonable period andrequire theapplicant tofilethecaseonthemerits andtoproduce theevidence
inwriting thereof, or,when thecaseonthemerits hasalready filed, toproduce theevidence inwriting
toprove thependency, within suchperiod. Incasetheapplicant failstoprovide suchevidences within
therequired period, thedefendant mayrequest thecourt toannul theorder (Article 37(1)(3) ofCodeIP/C/W/89
Page23
ofCivil Preservative Procedure). There arenospecific timelimittofilesucharequest. Please refer
toresponse 12totheChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement13.
24. Article 50.6provides thatifproceedings leading toadecision onthemerits arenotinitiated
within areasonable time, provisional remedies granted bycompetent authorities shallberevoked or
otherwise cease tohaveeffect, attherequest ofthedefendant. Please identify therelevant provisions
inthelawofJapan authorizing therevocation orcessation ofprovisional measures ifreview proceedings
arenotinitiated within areasonable timeandspecify whatconstitutes a"reasonable timeperiod" to
initiate proceedings.
Asreferred tointhereply toquestion 23,inJapan "reasonable timeperiod" asprovided for
inArticle 50.6oftheTRIPS Agreement issetbythecourt taking various factors intodueaccount
under Article 37ofCode ofCivil Preservative Procedure.
Special Requirements Related toBorder Measures
25. Please explain whether procedures, permissible under Article 51oftheTRIPS Agreement, are
available tostoptheexport ofgoods suspected ofinfringing copyrights and/or trademarks.
Theapplication procedure tothecustoms authorities isnotapplied toexportation ofthegoods
which infringe onintellectual property rights.
Ontheother hand, according toExport Trade Control Order, anyperson whointends toexport
goods which areincluded among thefollowing goods designated byMinister ofInternational Trade
andIndustry, mustobtain theapproval oftheMinister ofInternational Trade andIndustry bysecuring
anexport license inaccordance withtheprocedures setforth bytheMinistry ofInternational Trade
andIndustry Ordinance onexports.
(a) Goods which infringe onthepatent rights, utility model rights, design rights andtrade
mark rights and/or copyrights inthecountry thatisthefinaldestination.
(b) Goods which incorrectly identify theplace oforigin.
Forthisreason,incasethatthesegoodsreachcustomswithouthavingobtainedanexportlicense,
theexport permit shallnotbegiven inaccordance withArticle 70oftheCustoms Law. Furthermore,
therearenopastrecords ofJapanese authorities having authorized exports ofitems recognized asbeing
infringing articles.
26. Article 52oftheTRIPS Agreement requires thatrights holders wishing tostopimportation
ofcounterfeit trademarked goods orpirated copyrighted works present evidence tothecompetent
authorities thatthere isprima facieinfringement oftheirtrademark orcopyright. Please explain what
evidence willconstitute prima facieinfringement inJapan.
Theapplicant shallfillinapplication formwithdescription oftheirrights (trademark, copyright
orneighbouring right), names ofthecargo which he/she consider toinfringe onintellectual property
rights, reasons whyhe/she consider so,andother items determined relevant. (Article 61quater of
theCabinet Order forEnforcement oftheCustoms Tariff Law)
13IP/N/6/JPN/1.IP/C/W/89
Page24
27. Article 52requires thatthecompetent authorities notify therightholder thathisapplication
isaccepted within areasonable time. Please explain within whatperiod oftimethecompetent authority
responds toarequest forsuspension ofrelease ofgoods and,iftheapplication isaccepted, thelength
oftimeduring which enforcement action willbetaken.
Although theredoesnotexistanyprovision on"reasonable time", thecustoms authorities make
notification toright holders asexpeditiously aspossible. Themaximum period within which the
enforcement action istaken aretwoyears, anditmaybeextended.
28. Article53.2providesthattheowner,importer,orconsigneeofgoodsinvolvingindustrialdesigns,
patents, layout-designs orundisclosed information thathavebeensuspended bycustoms authorities
should beable,incertain circumstances, tohavesuchgoods released onpayment ofsecurity sufficient
toprotect therightholder frominfringement. Please identify whatforms ofintellectual property, if
any,aresubject toprovisions ofArticle 53.2andcitetotherelevant provisions oflaworregulations.
Forpatent right, utility model right, design rightorcircuit layout right, there doesnotexist
application procedure pursuant toArticle 53.2oftheTRIPS Agreement inJapan. Thus, thisArticle
isnotapplicable.
29. Article60permitsMemberstoexcludefromtheprovisionsforborderenforcementsmallquantities
ofgoods ofanon-commercial nature carried bypassengers orsentinsmall consignments. Please
describe what constitutes ademinimis import thatisexcluded fromtheborder measures under the
lawofJapan.
Theborder enforcement applies onlytothegoods imported onthecommercial basis, andthus
doesnotapply tosmall quantities ofgoods ofnon-commercial nature carried bypassengers orsent
insmall consignment forpersonal use.
Criminal Procedures
30. Article 61requires thatcriminal penalties besufficient toprovide adeterrent atleastforwilful
trademark counterfeiting andcopyright piracy. Please explain howthepenalties provided under the
lawsofJapan comply withthatobligation.
With regard toArticle 61oftheTRIPS Agreement, theJapanese Trademark Lawsetsforth
inArticle 78criminal penalty regulations concerning trademark infringement. Inthecasethatthe
infringer isanemployee, servant oragent ofacorporate body, penalties must bepaidnotonlyby
theinfringer butalsobythecorporate body (Article 78oftheJapanese Trademark Law), moreover,
thecorporate body hastopayahighpenalty beyond thatpaidbythenatural person (notexceeding
150million yen)(Article 82oftheJapanese Trademark Law). These above serves asadeterrent to
theorganized trademark rightinfringement ofthewhole corporate body.
Withregard tocopyright, thefollowing actswould beregarded asaviolation ofcriminal law
under theCopyright Law.
(a) Thefollowing shallbepunishable byimprisonment foratermnotexceeding threeyears
orafinenotexceeding three million yen:
(i) anyperson whoinfringes moral rights, copyright, right ofpublication or
neighbouring rights;IP/C/W/89
Page25
(ii) anyperson who, forprofit-making purposes, causes others touseautomatic
reproducing machines forsuchreproduction ofworks orperformances, etc.
asconstitutesaninfringementoncopyright,rightofpublicationorneighbouring
rights (Article 119).
(b) Anyperson whoviolates theprovision ofArticle 60(protection ofmoral interests after
theauthor 'sdeath) shall bepunishable byafinenotexceeding three million yen
(Article 120).
(c) Anyperson whodistributes copies ofworks onwhich thetruename orgenerally known
pseudonym ofanon-author isindicated asthename oftheauthor (including copies
ofderivative works onwhich thetruename orgenerally known pseudonym ofa
non-author oftheoriginal works isindicated asthename oftheoriginal author) shall
bepunishable byimprisonment foratermnotexceeding oneyearorafinenotexceeding
onemillion yen(Article 121).
(d) Anyperson whoviolates theprovisions ofArticle 48orArticle 102(2) (indication of
sources) shallbepunishable byafinenotexceeding three million yen(Article 122).