13

Current Status and Problems Concerning Typeface
Protection in Foreign Countries

Typefaces are becoming increasingly important in various media with the progress ofdigitization, and there are calls for discussions on how typefaces should be protected. In order toexamine possible systems for typeface protection that befit the current situation, it is necessary to
clarify the typeface-related markets and the distribution channels and modes of transaction of
typefaces, as well as gain a precise understanding of the need for typeface protection.
In this study, we gathered information concerning the demand of the industrial sector andreviewed and examined court judgments and academic theories concerning typefaces in Japan. In
addition, with the aim of contributing to future studies on typeface protection in Japan, wesurveyed and analyzed the historical background and the current status of the typeface protection
systems of major countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, theEuropean Union and the Republic of Korea).

I

Introduction

II

According to the concept of ownership
under natural law, a typeface design, createdby an individual, should originally belong to
the individual in question. However, as
typefaces are related to written characters,
which are common property of all people,
such individuals can only claim ownership ofthe design (type style) applied to thecharacters (character shape), which arecommon property of all people.
The modes of transaction of typefaces
have diversified in line with advancement ofdigital networking, so when examining legal
protection of typefaces, it is necessary to gaina precise understanding of the demand andnecessity for such protection. We compiled
this report by comparing the status of legal
protection for typefaces in Japan with that inplace in foreign countries based on aninterview
surveyofJapanese
typeface-related associations and companies
and a fact-finding survey on typeface
protection in Japan and foreign countries.

1

What Are Typefaces?
A typeface is a single-set type style basedon a unified concept, the primary purpose ofwhich is setting type for printed matter orother documents. Typefaces are generally
used in the form of fonts so as to beincorporated into equipment.
2Creation Process and Modes ofDistribution/Transaction of Typefaces
The design of a typeface is usually drawn
on paper or created on a personal computerwith the assumed purpose of using it as afont matrix. However, the characters set at
this stage cannot be directly used fortypesetting. Therefore, typefaces are changed
into type fonts that take the form of printing
types, phototypesetting fonts or digital fonts
for actual use in the printing or displaying ofcharacters.
The total amount of transactions in thetypeface/digital font market is estimated tobe approximately 100 billion yen per year,
and the market is expanding with the
products being traded as digital content
products under licensing agreements via
1

IIP Bulletin 2007

Background of Discussions on
Legal Protection for Typefaces inJapan

CD-ROMs and thecomputer programs.

Internet

similarto

III Current Status of Legal Protection
for Typefaces in Japan

3

Trends in Legal Protection for
Typefaces
In regards to typeface protection under
the Copyright Act, the Supreme Court
indicated the following as requirements for
typefaces to be regarded as a copyright work:“it is reasonable to construe that, in order fora printing type style to correspond to a work
as prescribed here (N.B.: Article 2(1)(i) of the
Copyright Act), it needs to have originality,
such as outstanding characteristics incomparison to conventional printing typestyles, and it needs to have aesthetic
characteristics so that it can be appreciatedas art in itself.” Although this court judgment
did not deny the copyrightability of typefaces,
it has been interpreted that typeface
protection under the Copyright Act is hardly
possible since the typeface related to thiscourt judgment was recognized in theindustry as being highly creative.

1

Protection Under the Copyright Act
The Japanese Copyright Act does nothave direct and express provisions forprotecting typefaces. With regard to the
copyrightability of typefaces, there have beenarguments as to whether or not they fallunder the category of art under the CopyrightAct, but there have been no cases wheretypefaces were held to be copyrightable
except in some very special cases.
Among the reasons for the difficulty inprotecting typefaces under the Copyright Act
are the following: (i) it is hard to identify
originality that would differentiate thetypeface from conventional ones; (ii) it is hard
to identify oneness that derives from thetypeface being a single, unified set; (iii) it isdifficult to establish whether copyrightpertains to individual characters or to a set ofcharacters; (iv) it is difficult to determine theextent of alteration that is regarded as
reproduction; and (v) if the standard for
determination of originality is relaxed, too
many rights could arise and thereby could
run contrary to the purpose of the CopyrightAct.

4

Demand and Necessity for Legal
Protection of Typefaces
In this study, we conducted an interview
survey covering seven industrial associations
that are considered to work closely with
typefaces. As a result, we found a trend thatthe demand for typeface protection is higher
for industries with a larger number oftypeface manufacturers.
From the typeface users’ side, on theother hand, there was an opinion that
because typefaces are for public use,establishment of a legal system for typeface
protection would obstruct smooth businessactivities and hinder promotion in an
information-oriented society. There was also
an opinion that the need to determine
infringement, which requires enormous costs
and efforts, and the increased risk of disputes
could reduce business activity. Also, manyusers opined that typeface protection under
the current Design Act was inappropriate.

2

Protection Under the Design Act
During the Meiji Era (late 19th century
to early 20th century), Japan recognizeddesign registrations for printing type styles.
However, the current Design Act protects
designs applied to articles, which aretangible goods mass-produced by industrial
means. Therefore, it is difficult to protect
typeface designs, which are character designs
that are not directly related to the productionof articles, under the current Design Act.
3

Protection
Under
the
UnfairCompetition Prevention Act
The Unfair Competition Prevention Act
aims to protect business interests byprohibiting unfair competition in thebusiness sector. When considering typeface
protection under this Act, the problem iswhether or not typefaces can be regarded as
2

IIP Bulletin 2007

protection is being extended to typefaces.
However, courts have held that
infringement or tort cannot be establishedwhen the typeface in question cannot be
determined to be an imitation due to a slightalteration, and have indicated that, even for
the above-mentioned typefaces that can be
regarded as copyright works, it would run
contrary to the purpose of the Copyright Act
if the originality requirement were relaxed orif this were to be considered sufficient for thetypeface to have an aesthetic characteristicfrom the viewpoint of practical function.
Therefore, whichever law is applied, thescope of protection would be extremely
narrow, limited to merely preventing
reproductionsofeffectively
identical
typefaces.

“goods” or regarded to be equivalent thereto.
There is no fixed view regarding this point incourt judgments either. However, even if
typefaces could be regarded as “goods,” there
are strict requirements in terms of similarity,
how well known they are, and the potential
for confusion with other goods. Therefore,
protection under the Unfair Competition
Prevention Act could provide certain legal
relief against slavish imitations, but it would
not be a sufficient relief because, in
individual cases, the requirements forprotection would be difficult to satisfy.

4

Protection Under Tort Law
In regards to typeface protection throughtort theory under the Civil Code, there havebeen court judgments that tried to establish
tort only in the case of slavish imitations, butthere seems to be little possibility for
application of tort for the protection of
typefaces, which can be easily modified andtransformed.

IV Current Status of Legal Protection
for Typefaces Overseas
1

Typeface Protection Under the Vienna
Agreement
On June 12, 1973, the “Vienna
Agreement for the Protection of Type Faces
and Their International Deposit” and the“Protocol to the Vienna Agreement forProtection of Type Faces and theirInternational Deposit concerning the Term ofProtection” were concluded at a diplomaticconference held in Vienna.
This agreement clarifies the definition of
typefaces and obligates the contracting statesto establish special national deposit systems
or use the deposit systems provided for in
their national industrial design laws, or toensure the protection of typefaces by theirnational copyright provisions.
The Vienna Agreement was to take effectthrough ratification by at least five states,
but it has yet to take effect as it has only been
ratified by Germany (former West Germany)and France.
(1) United States
The
UnitedStatesPatentandTrademark Office (USPTO) has traditionallygranted design patents for typefaces (typefonts). Indeed, the very first US design

5

Protection Under the Trademark Act
The name of a typeface, such as “Typos,”can be protected under a trademark right byregistering it as a trademark. However,registration of the name only constitutes one
element of typeface protection, and thesubject of the trademark registration would
be phototypesetting font disks or CD-ROMs,
so the intangible typefaces would not bedirectly protected.
6Consideration on Typeface Protection
Under Current Japanese Laws
No current Japanese laws expressly
provide for typeface protection. However,given that past court judgments havesuggested protection of slavish imitations offonts through the application of the Unfair
Competition Prevention Act, the tort theory
under the Civil Code, or the Copyright Act byregarding typefaces as computer program
works, and have indicated that typefaces
with originality in comparison withconventional typefaces and those withaesthetic characteristics are regarded as
copyright works, it is estimated that some3
IIP Bulletin 2007

Designs and Patents Act (CDPA 1988). The
CDPA
1988
also
providesfortheunregistered design right system, which
protects designs from imitations even
without design registrations. However, since
unregistered design right is construed to only
protect
three-dimensional
forms,
metal-printing types would be protectable,
but digital typefaces would not beprotectable.
It is generally accepted that the“typographic type-faces” prescribed in theRegistered Designs Act include intangible
typefaces. Digital typeface data does notcomply with the definition of design sincesuch data does not have features such as“lines, contours, colours” and so on producing
the “appearance” of the data.
Printing types and phototypesetting
machine font disks per se correspond to thedefinition of “product” as being industrial or
handicraft items.
The owner of a registered typeface has
an exclusive right that prohibits other people
from using the typeface in question, but an
act of creating an article that makes creationof a primary infringing article possible does
not constitute infringement. Therefore, molds,
printing plates or matrices used for creating
the registered design can be manufactured
and supplied without infringing theregistered design right.
It is not an infringement of copyright inan artistic work consisting of the design of a
typeface to use the typeface in the ordinary
course of typing, composing text, typesettingor printing, to possess an article for the
purpose of such use, or to do anything in
relation to material produced by such use(Section 54(1) of the CDPA 1988). Therefore,
when a final or intermediate typeface user,
such as a printing business, uses the typeface
in the ordinary course of business, it is not an
infringement of copyright in the design.
Where copyright subsists in a work
which consists of or includes a design inwhich design right subsists, it is not an
infringement of design right in the design to
do anything which is an infringement of the
copyright in that work (Section 236 of thepatent, which was issued on November 9,
1842, was for “printing types.”
However, the USPTO appears to take astance that a “typeface,” which consists of aset of characters that commonly sharespecific design characteristics, is notprotectable by design patent since it is not anarticle of manufacture, but that a “font” isprotectable by design patent because it
incorporates the means used for creating aparticular collection of characters of a
typeface and said means corresponds to an“article of manufacture.”
A design patent owner of a font isgranted a monopolistic exclusive right toprevent other people from manufacturing,using, offering to sell or selling a fontcomprising the claimed design within the
United States or importing such fonts into
the United States for 14 years from the dateof issuance of the design patent.
Determination of the scope of articles
infringing a typeface is based on whether or
not the article corresponds to the claimedmeans for creating the font. While the fontdisk of a phototypesetting machine or astorage medium containing a digital
phototypesetting program for a typeface canconstitute an infringing article, a program or
piece of software alone is construed as notcorresponding to an infringing article unless
it is, for instance, installed on a computer forthe purpose of creating the font in question.
Typeface protection under copyright law
has been denied under US case law, andtypefaces are not protected under the US
Copyright Act. However, font software
programs for creating typefaces are
copyrightable and can be registered.
(2) United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, designs areprotected by registered design right,
unregistered design right, and copyright.
The Registered Designs Act pertaining toregistered design right was revised in 2001 in
response to the EU Design Directive,
clarifying that “type-faces” are included
among “products” pertaining to design.
Meanwhile, typeface protection bycopyright is provided for in the Copyright,
4
IIP Bulletin 2007

characters and their original shapes, but the
impression created by way of interaction of
the individual characters within thecharacter set in its entirety. Therefore, evenwhen a part of a type style in a typeface set
application lacks novelty or originality,
protection for the entire typeface is notprecluded. Nevertheless, partial registrationsof typefaces are not permitted.
The old Designs Law and the Typefaces
Law previously provided for design rights asrights aimed at prohibiting reproductions. In
contrast, the current Designs Law provides
for design rights as monopolistic exclusive
rights that also extend to original creations
by third parties.
(4) France
France achieved protection of typefaces
under the Design Law by incorporating the
EU Design Directive in Book V (current
Design Law) of the French Intellectual
Property Code and providing that typefaces
are included among “articles” protected as
designs.
Protectable articles must have beencreated as a result of human activities.
Therefore, “typefaces” are interpreted as
referring to tangible items such as
phototypesetting
machinefont
disksdesigned to display or print specific typestyles, and do not include type style designs
per se, which are intangible. Digital typestyle
designdata
isconstruedasunprotectable since computer programs are
excluded from the definition of articles.
Ornamental or aesthetic creations thatare expressed in the form of designs areprotected under either the Copyright Law or
the Design Law or under both of these lawsin accordance with to the choice of the creator.
This system derives from the theory of theunity of beauty, which is an idea that
protection for a work is not affected by theaesthetic value or the purpose of the use of
said work. According to this definition, rights
for a work created by way of the creator’s own
inspiration are protected as copyrightirrespective of the type, mode of expression,
usefulness or purpose of the work inquestion.

CDPA 1988).
(3) Germany
Typefaces came to be directly protectedby law in Germany when the Law on the
Vienna Agreement of June 12, 1973, for theProtectionofTypefaces
and
theirInternational Deposit (Typefaces Law)provided that “new and peculiar typographic
characters shall be granted design protection
based on the following standards inaccordance with the provisions of the Law
Concerning Copyright in Industrial Designs(Designs Law)” (Section 2(1)).
Later, in response to the effectuation of
the EU Design Directive on November 17,
1998, a revised Designs Law entered into
force on June 1, 2004, which expressly
indicates that typefaces are included in the“product” protected by design rights. With
this measure, legal protection was extended
to typefaces under the current Designs Law.
Under the current Designs Law, thedefinition of “product” is construed as not
being limited to tangible items, but also
extending to two-dimensional (graphic
symbols or typefaces) or three-dimensional(ordinary
goods)
items.
Accordingly,
intangible type style designs are included in
the “product” category, but digital type style
design data is not considered a “product”
since “computer programs are not deemed to
be products” (Section 1(2)).
The requirements for protection ofdesigns under the current Designs Law are
as follows: (i) novelty; (ii) originality; and (iii)
not constituting a feature of the product’s
appearance that is solely the result of the
product’s technical functions. However, inthe old Designs Law and the Typefaces Law,
the only requirements were novelty andoriginality. This seems to illustrate that,while originality under the old Designs Law
was based on a copyright-like approach andfocused on aesthetic peculiarities, originality
under the current Designs Law attaches
importance to the difference between
already-known designs and newly filed
designs.
A typeface protected under the Designs
Law does not constitute the individual5
IIP Bulletin 2007

designs and achieves protection of typefaces
as design rights within the European Union.
This regulation provides for two systems,
namely registered Community designs andunregistered Community designs that are
effective across the European Union.
Registered Community designs take effectthrough registration with the Office for
Harmonization in the Internal Market(OHIM) and the term of protection is a
maximum 25 years from the filing date. On
the other hand, unregistered Community
designs take effect without formalities on the
day on which the design was first madeavailable to the public in the European Union,
and the term of protection is three years.
The
protectablesubject
matterassociated with typefaces include tangible
goods such as printing types and font disks ofphototypesetting machines, but digital
typeface data is not protectable sincecomputer programs are excluded from thedefinition of “products.”
An indication of the products in which
the design is intended to be incorporated or towhich it is intended to be applied is obligatedat the time of filing an application forregistration,buttheindicationorexplanation of products or the classificationof products contained therein do not affectthe scope of protection in relation to thedesign itself.
A registered Community design is amonopolistic exclusive right that also extends
to original creations by third parties.
However, an unregistered Community design
constitutes a right to prohibit reproductions
and does not extend to cases where third
parties have independently used a design
without knowledge of the design owner’s
published design.
The scope of “products” that could
constitute infringement are products thathave as their function the creation of
succeeding products in which the protected
typefaces are intended to be incorporated,
such
as
word
processor
softwareincorporating phototypesetting machine fontdisks or typefaces as fonts. However,personal computers with such word processor

Design rights are a monopolistic
exclusive rights based on which a design isregarded as an imitation if it is found to have
similarities with the essential characteristics
of a protected design. However, there is aprovision stipulating that third parties are
not subject to civil liability if they can provethat their original creations have been madein good faith, thereby limiting enforcement
based on the monopolistic exclusive right inonly that respect.
With regard to typefaces, which arecharacterized by the fact that the character
shapes, i.e. the design frameworks, arecommon property of all people, exclusive
rights can only be enforced when a design not
only has characteristics that are similar toprotected
design,butthesimilarcharacteristics in question are not in the
public domain. In other words, the designmustbesimilartotheessential
characteristics pertaining to the originality ofthe protected design.
The Intellectual Property Code does nothave provisions regarding the right to seek
infringement against acts of infringement.
However, infringement can be sought under
the provisions on “summary interlocutory
proceedings” under Article 809 of the Code ofCivil Procedure. Summary interlocutory
proceedings are allowed only when theplaintiff has proved infringement of his/herright or imminent risk thereof by way ofeasily accessible evidence.
Two seizure procedures are stipulated:creation of a detailed description of theinfringing articles, etc. (first procedure) andactual seizure (second procedure). Generally,
seizing officers only seize samples within thescope of the first procedure and do not seize
all of the articles or equipment. The reason
for this is that as seizure does incur serious
damage to the defendant, it merely
constitutes a means for proving infringement
and not a punitive procedure.
(5) European Union
The Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002
of 12 December 2001 on Community designs(the EU Design Directive) provides for
typefaces as products to be protected as
6
IIP Bulletin 2007

extend to the use of the style of calligraphy inan ordinary process such as typing,typesetting or printing and to the resulting
products stemming from the use of the styleofcalligraphy,
therebylimitingthemonopolistic exclusive right to that extent.

software pre-installed do not correspond to“products” because the appearance oftypefaces cannot be perceived in ordinary use
when said software is not being used.
(6) Republic of Korea
The “Industrial Design Protection Act,”
which saw the law title changed from theconventional “Design Act” on December 31,
2004, introduced express provisions for
typeface protection at the time of its revision
by including the style of calligraphy within
the definition of “articles,” and providing thatthe “style of calligraphy” refers to “a script(including numbers, marks, symbols etc.)
made in the form of common features for use
in recording, marking or printing.”
As the conventional Design Act had
stipulated independently tradable tangible
movables as “articles,” the calligraphy style
designs, which could not be categorized as“articles,” were unprotectable under the
Design Act. Because of this, typeface
protection was achieved under the new Act
by deeming the “style of calligraphy” as“articles.”The “style of calligraphy” under the
Industrial Design Protection Act does notinclude the design of the style of calligraphy
per se, but includes analog fonts such as
printing types and phototypesetting machine
font disks and digital fonts such as electronic
data pertaining to calligraphy style design
recorded in computers or electronic memory
devices and used for printing the style ofcalligraphy.
The requirements for “a script” are thatthe entire script must be made in the form
bearing common features and the script must
constitute a set.
There have only been two cases wheretypefaces were actually registered andpublished.
According to
the KoreanIntellectual
Property
Office,many
applications are filed, but many are refusedin the examination process.
A design right is a monopolistic exclusive
right, which also extends to original creations
by third parties. However, there areprovisions on limitation of effects stipulatingthat the effects of a design right do not

3Comparative
Examinationson
Typeface
Protection
in
Major
Countries
Based on the survey results of the six
foreign countries, comparative examinations
were made in regards to the modes of legal
protection for typefaces in the surveyedcountries.
Specifically, we compared the differencesin the systems and legal interpretations inthese countries with regard to themes suchas the concept of products (articles),treatment of computer programs, the scope ofconcepts covered by typefaces (analog fonts,
digital fonts, typeface designs per se),requirements for protection, registration
systems, the effects of the design right, thescope of articles to which protection extends,
the scope of acts to which the protection
extends,
andenforcement
againstinfringement.
As a result of such comparative
examinations,wefoundconsiderable
differences between countries in respect tothe concepts of protectable designs andproducts, the effects of design rights, thescope of articles and acts to which protection
extends, and the scope of enforcement
againstinfringement,evenbetweenEuropean countries that have revised theirdesign laws based on the same EU Design
Directive.
One of the assumable causes for suchdifferences between countries in regards tothe concept of products, the concept of
typefaces, and the scope of enforcement isthat the basic concepts under conventionallaw and the provisions for typeface protection
have not been rendered consistent andarranged into a consistent logic in theprovisions of law. For example, in the UnitedStates, the Republic of Korea and European
countries,
conventionalandtypical7

IIP Bulletin 2007

of the provisions and specific details of
typeface protection under the design laws of
the respective countries were found to beneither concrete nor clear, possibly due tolack of sufficient discussions, examinations
and debates on the occasions of legal revisionand lawsuits in these countries.
For example, responses from therespective countries lacked commonalities
regarding the specific status of use, including
the manufacture, sale, possession and importof typefaces that are regarded as intangible
goods and the specific status of acts of
infringement, the question of the extent towhich the effects of a design right can apply
to products that incorporate allegedly
infringing typefaces in order to seek an
injunction against said typeface, and thequestion of the scope of responsibilities ofbona fide manufacturers and distributors of
products
incorporatinganallegedly
infringing typeface when the infringed party
requests deletion of said typeface from theirproducts or changes to said typeface. In
addition, none of the countries provided
responses that suggested that sufficient
discussions and examinations have been
made regarding these aspects.
In the United States and the Republic ofKorea, typefaces are protected by deeming
them as articles, without changing thedefinition of the design, which is based ontangible articles. Thus, these systems lackclarity as to whether it is typefaces or type
fonts that are subject to protection, while theconcept of protectable subject matter
constitutes the starting basis of theinstitutional framework. Because of this, adetailed examinations or hypotheticalverifications
regardingcontents
ofinfringement or interpretation of the scope ofright, which constitute the final stage of theframework of the protection system, cannot
yet be made.
At the same time, in the interview
survey on typeface protection in Japan, we
identified the need for some kind ofprotection in light of the effort and costinherent in the creation of typefaces, butsince there are established practices to“products” have mainly been regarded astangible goods represented by industrial
products, and by adding typefaces that
embody the concept of design per se, a part ofthe conventional concept of products may
have been rendered ambiguous andinconsistent.
At the same time, typefaces are by theirvery nature items that are used and featured
on all kinds of articles that display
characters, such as books and other printed
matter and Internet web pages. Therefore,
when they are protected and such protectionismadeenforceable
byrecognizing
monopolistic exclusive rights, there is also
the risk that the influence that such rights
represent would become excessive. However,apart from the Republic of Korea, which
maintains provisions for limiting the effectsof such rights, there are no provisions that
limit the scope of the effects of themonopolistic exclusive right pertaining totypefaces.
In Japan, the definition of design has
been reviewed by way of a partial revision of
the Design Act in 2006 for the purpose of
expanding the scope of protection of screen
designs. In this revision, however, the scopeof protection was expanded not by way of
expanding the concept of “articles,” but by
also extending protection to “shape” and“patterns” of a part of an article in a graphic
image on a screen.
Since the basic ideas underlying design
law differ between countries, it would bemeaningless to argue which approach isappropriate, but considering that Japanese
law maintains as a fundamental concept thatdesign rights should be based on articles, theconcepts and methodologies for typeface
protection adopted in the surveyed countries
are unlikely to be directly adaptable to theJapanese context.

V

Summary

In all of the countries surveyed in thisstudy, typefaces were found to be protectedunder design law. However, interpretations
8
IIP Bulletin 2007

effects of the design, making said
determination all the more difficult.
Thirdly, the contents of acts of
infringement should be clarified. A design
right is an absolute exclusive right against
which good faith defenses are not permitted.
Therefore, without clarifying the scope of acts
and products that would be affected inpractice as acts of infringement or products
subject to infringement with regard tointangible typefaces, protection may instead
have the effect of reducing the creation of
typefaces or the manufacture of products
using typefaces, thereby hindering thesmooth distribution of products.
Fourthly, an appropriate framework fora system for the protection of typefaces
should be outlined. While typefaces areprotected under the design laws of thecountries surveyed in this study, the design
laws of the countries in question all havedifferent characteristics, and aspects that are
different from the Japanese Design Act.
Therefore, what is needed is an objective
analysis and comparison of the institutionalframeworks of the design laws of therespective countries so as to ascertain whichcharacteristics would be most effective in thecase of protecting typefaces in Japan. In
addition, there is also a need to sufficiently
scrutinize the framework, purpose andspecific composition of the systems thatcomprise the current Japanese Copyright Act
and Design Act, and to clarify the points
highlighted above in the first threechallenges.
(Senior Researcher: Yoshihito INABAYASHI)

ensure remuneration for typeface creation inaccordance with the contents of transfers or
the contracting of actual transactions, we
could not identify specific demand for using
the framework of industrial property laws for
typeface protection.
The challenges for future examinations
on typeface protection include the following
four points.
Firstly, the need for typeface protection
should be clarified. It is necessary toascertain the fact that typefaces are being
reproduced and imitated in large quantities
by many unspecified persons as well as thefact that typeface imitations are being
distributed in large quantities, and to
identify the actual conditions in which suchactivity is being carried out.
Secondly, the units covered by typeface
protection should be clarified. Under thedesign law, the balance between the design
owner and third parties is achieved based onan understanding that a design right covers asingle individual article type, and that thedesign rights do not extend to different typesof articles even if their shapes are similar.
Moreover, determination of the requirements
for registration or interpretation of the scopeof right is made based on the design disclosed
in the application or the drawing attached tothe application, and when comparing designs,
design similarity is determined based upon
the aesthetic impression that the designs
would create through the eye of theirconsumers, by way of observation ofindividual designs in their entirety.
Accordingly, it is essential to clarify the outer
limits of the design so as to be able to identify
the entirety of a single design. In the case of
the Japanese language, which contains alarge number of characters and charactertypes, the scope of a single set of typeface
tends to become vague, given that the scopeof a set of typeface actually changes
according to the contents of the contract or
the situation of use. Therefore, there is a riskof the outer limits of the design in question
becoming ambiguous when identifying thedesign, determining the requirements forregistration or interpreting the scope of
9
IIP Bulletin 2007