5 Typeface Protection in Japan
A typeface is a set of characters, etc. that has been created for use for printing, display, etc.
based on a concept relating to shape. While the creation of a typeface requires certain labor andcosts, it is easy to imitate one from printed materials, etc. Therefore, typeface creators require
some sort of legal protection for typefaces. In addition, there is no express provision on typeface
protection in the current Japanese intellectual property law system. Therefore, it is worth
considering an appropriate form of typeface protection in Japan.
In this study, the actual conditions of typeface creation and transactions in Japan andproblems such as the imitation of typefaces were determined and organized. The current status ofproblems related to typefaces and specific measures to handle those problems were then discussed,
along with the need for a new framework for legal protection under the intellectual property law
system, with the aim of setting a definite direction for desirable typeface protection in Japan.

I

Introduction

1

Purpose of This Study

Typefaces are becoming increasingly
important in various media with the progressof digitization. While the creation of a
typeface requires certain labor and costs, it iseasy to imitate a typeface from printed
materials, etc. Therefore, typeface creators
have a need for some sort of legal protectionof typefaces. However, as is also pointed out
in the “Intellectual Property Strategic
Program 2007,” according to the current
interpretation of the Copyright Act, typeface
designs per se that are not embodied incomputer programs are not deemed to be
copyrightable. In addition, there is noexpress provision on typeface protection in
the current intellectual property law system.
Therefore,
appropriate
protectionoftypefaces is worth considering.
Against the backdrop of this situation,
we conducted surveys on the current status oflegal protection of typefaces – mainly under
the intellectual property law system – inJapan and other countries, in the course of
the study “Current Status and Problems
Concerning Typeface Protection in Foreign
Countries” (hereinafter referred to as the“fiscal 2006 study”), which was implemented
in fiscal 2006. This fiscal 2006 study revealed
that the scope of typefaces protected under●

IIP Bulletin 2008

the current law in Japan is limited, and that,in other countries, there are very few court
precedents related to typefaces despite theexistence of governing legislation thatrecognizes typeface protection.
In light of these results, in this study, we
discussed problems related to typefaces andthe need for typeface protection under theintellectual property law system, aftergaining an understanding of and organizing
the actual conditions and problems oftypeface transactions, and also considered
the future direction of desirable typeface
protection in Japan.

2

Study Method(1) Domestic Questionnaire Survey andDomestic Interview Surveys
In order to understand the actual
conditions of creation and transactions oftypefaces, as well as problems such as
imitation of typefaces, we conducted aquestionnaire survey targeting creators andusers, etc. of typefaces in Japan. In addition,
we selected about 20 respondents (including
individuals), mainly creators and companies,
who had answered in the questionnaire
survey that a problem related to typefaces
had arisen, and conducted interview surveys
with them in person or by phone. We thereby
gained a more detailed understanding of theactual conditions of creation and transactions
30 ●of typefaces and problems related to them,and used it as a basis for considerations inthis study.
(2) Overseas Interview Surveys
In order to survey the actual conditionsof practical operation of legal protection of
typefaces and the current status of problems
such as imitation in other countries, we
conducted interview surveys with relevant
government offices, persons of learning andexperience, law firms, typeface creators andtypeface-related companies in the UnitedStates, Europe (United Kingdom, Germany,
France and the Netherlands) and theRepublic of Korea.
(3) Consideration by the Committee
For consideration and analysis from atechnical perspective, we formed a committee
for this study, consisting of 13 experts. In
light of the results of the fiscal 2006 study,
the domestic questionnaire and interview
surveys and the overseas interview surveys,
over six meetings, the committee discussed (i)the current status of problems related to
typefaces and the need for a new framework
for their legal protection under theintellectual property law system and (ii)specific measures to handle problems related
to typefaces, and considered a definite
direction for desirable typeface protection in
Japan.
This report summarizes the results of theabove-mentioned
discussions
andconsiderations with regard to desirable
typeface protection in Japan.

II

Characteristics of Typefaces

1

Definitions of Terms

In this report, terms related to typefaces
are defined as follows.
・Typeface“Typeface” means a set of characters, etc.
that has been created based on a concept
relating to shape. As it is intangible, when it
is used for printing or display, etc., it is used●in the form of a font that is suited for theequipment. It generally refers to “typestyle.”
・Font“Font” means a typeface that has been madeusable in equipment that is mainly for
printing or display. It includes analog fonts,
such as phototypesetting fonts that are used
for phototypesetting machines, and digital
fonts that are used for computers.

2

Outline of Creation and Distribution ofTypefaces(1) Creation of Typefaces and Fonts
It can be said that typefaces are createdto make fonts, which are used for a practical
purpose – that is, efficient communication of
information by printing or display, etc.
Creation of a typeface starts with thecreation of original characters in accordancewith a basic concept regarding character
shape and form, which has been decided
based on an idea for a new font, by hand or on
a computer. After converting these original
characters into digital data as needed, theshapes of individual characters and theirpositional relationship are corrected while
outputting
variouscombinationsofcharacters; thereby, the information necessary
for making the characters into a font iscollected. Data corrected in this manner isconverted in accordance with the standard
based on which the characters are made intoa font, and it becomes a complete font after
inspection as goods and is made public andsold.
In the course of creating typefaces, many
font vendors spend the most effort testingandcorrecting
thebalancebetweenindividual characters and between designs of
those characters in actual vertical or
horizontal typesetting. This is because thevalue of a font as a product is determinedbased not only on the aesthetic characteristicof the forms of individual characters, but also
on the readability and balance of thecharacters in actual typesetting.
31 ●IIP Bulletin 2008

(2) Distribution of Typefaces and Fonts
Major contracts that are concluded interms of the distribution of typefaces andfonts include contracts concluded between adesigner who creates a typeface and a fontvendor who converts the typeface into a font,and contracts concluded between a fontvendor and font users.
Firstly, under a contract between adesigner and a font vendor, the designer gives
the font vendor a license for converting thetypeface in question into a font whileproviding the basic concept regarding theshapes and forms of the characters of thetypeface (elements of characters, counter
space, etc.), as well as sample characters. In
addition, under this contract, the designer
and the font vendor generally promise tocooperate in work relating to the processfrom the creation of original characters to thecompletion of a font. The process conductedin cooperation by a designer and a fontvendor often includes the following steps: (i)the designer creates a certain number offundamental characters and characters witha distinctive shape; (ii) persons engaged in
the process on the font vendor’s sidedisassemble these fundamental charactersand characters with a distinctive shape withrespect to each element, and create othernecessary characters by combining theelements; (iii) after a set of characters iscreated, the designer finally confirms
whether the shapes of the characters as awhole are based on the basic concept, andmakes any necessary corrections.
Next, a contract between a font vendor
and users is often concluded in the form of ashrink-wrap contract or click-on contract.
The object of such a contract is generally afont, and the contract allows users to use thefont within the scope of licensed use. Thus, a
typeface is not the direct object of such acontract.

●

IIP Bulletin 2008

3

Characteristics of a Collection ofCharacters of a Typeface

Since a typeface consists of “a set ofcharacters, etc.,” it is considered to have thefollowing characteristics.
The shapes of the individual charactersof a typeface are created under the constraintof recognizability as characters. In addition,
habituation to character form has aconsiderable effect on the readability ofcharacters. Therefore, highly practical
typefaces, in particular, are similar to eachother by necessity.
Next, the number of symbols and kanji
characters that make up a “set” of characters,
etc. of a typeface is not clearly determined.
This is because there are fonts only for kanacharacters or alphabetic characters, andbecause, in some cases, the number ofcharacters, etc. of a typeface is increased or
reduced through the addition of missing
characters, etc. even after a set of charactershas been made into a font.
Moreover, in order to make a highly
practical font by increasing readability,
exceptional processing based on a fixed rule
is applied to the individual characters thatmake up a typeface. A typeface is a set ofcharacters, etc. created in accordance withthe basic concept of a designer; however,looking at the details objectively, it is not thecase that all the characters that make up a
typeface have the same characteristics.
In addition, it is difficult to objectively
determine at what point the creation of a
typeface is completed during the course of thecreation process. At the point when a basic
concept is decided, the concept is a designer’s
idea and a typeface cannot be specified inconcrete form. At the point when a set ofcharacters, etc. is created, before conversion
into a font, the shapes of the individual
characters that make up a typeface are
expected to be subtly altered throughcorrections that are made for increased
readability when converting the characters
into a font. At the point when the creation of
32 ●a font is completed, it is expected thatmissing characters will be added in somecases even after completion. Taking all of this
into consideration, none of these points canbe said to be the time of completion of a
typeface.

III

Present Legal
Typefaces

1

Legal Protection
Japan

ProtectionofTypefacesofin(1) Legal protection of typefaces under thecurrent law
There is no express provision on typeface
protection in the current law of Japan.
However, past court judgments indicate thata typeface can become subject to protection
under the current law if it meets certain
requirements.
Firstly, regarding protection under the
Copyright Act, the Supreme Court has
indicated that a type style with remarkable
originality
andexcellentaestheticcharacteristics could be protected under the
Copyright Act, though there has been no
court
judgment
that
found
the
copyrightability of typefaces.
Secondly, regarding protection under tort
law, the lower court has held in its judgmentthat the act of making/selling a type style byimitating the characteristics of another typestyle that is not entitled to protection under
the Copyright Act but is truly creative andhas peculiar characteristics compared toother conventional type styles in its entirety
shall fall under the category of torts.
However, there has been no case in which
protection of a type style under tort law wasrecognized.
Thirdly, regarding protection under the
Unfair Competition Prevention Act, there is alower court judgment in which the court
found
the
establishmentof
unfaircompetition
under
the
old
UnfairCompetition Prevention Act with regard to a
type style, which is an intangible item, byholding that an intangible item can be●“goods” as referred to in said Act if it isindependently made subject to transaction.
Therefore, there is room for protection undersaid Act if other requirements for protection(serving as an indication of goods or businessand being well known, as well as theexistence of the possibility of occurrence ofconfusion, etc.) under said Act are fulfilled.
Moreover, with regard to digital fonts, if
a digital font is expressed as a combination oforders given to a computer so as to indicate a
specific character in a specified size based onan order from other software, it can becovered by protection under the Copyright
Act as one type of program as referred to in
the Copyright Act.
In the case where there is a contractual
relationship regarding a typeface or a font, if
one party to the contract violates the contract,
the other party thereto can terminate thecontract, claim damages or take other actionsin accordance with the provisions of thecontract.
(2) Views in Academic Theories Regarding
Legal Protection of Typefaces
There is no express provision on typeface
protection in the current intellectual
property law of Japan. However, in terms ofacademic theories, there is no objection todeeming typefaces as intellectual property
because of the following reasons: (i) in
creating a typeface, it is necessary to adjust
the balance of designs of individual
characters, which make up the typeface,under the constraint of recognizability as
characters, in order to increase readability
when the characters are arranged, and theadjustment largely depends on the designer’s
originality and ingenuity and requiresconsiderable labor and time; and (ii) a
typeface, which is the outcome of creative
activities, is considered to have economic
value.
However, with regard to the mode of legal
protection of typefaces as intellectual property,
there are different opinions based on the ideaof the subject matter of protection. For
example, in one opinion, the subject matter of
33 ●IIP Bulletin 2008

protection is considered to be the incentive for
typeface creation in the future, while inanother opinion, it is considered to be theinvested capital and labor that have beenspent to create a typeface. In addition,according to another opinion, since characters
function as a medium for communication,
typeface creation involves constraints interms of expression, which are attributable tothe basic shapes of characters. Then, if
excessively strong protection is granted for
typefaces, creation by other persons andsmooth communication may be inhibited.
Therefore, even in the case of granting legal
protection for typefaces, only limited
protection should be granted.

2

Actual Conditions of Legal Protectionof Typefaces in Other Countries

The following actual conditions oftypeface protection were revealed throughinterview surveys in the United States,
Europe and the Republic of Korea.
(1) Actual conditions of typeface protectionin the United States
In the United States, typefaces havebeen deemed to be protectable by design
patent under the category of “font of type”
from the very start of the introduction of thedesign patent system. Originally, “fonts” aredeemed to be protectable by design patent asthey include the means of manufacture,including block letters. However, from thevery start of the introduction of the design
patent system, fonts have been registeredbased only on the shapes of characters while
omitting block letters. Therefore, in practice,
the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) will not refuse a design
patent application for such a font without
physical form (including a digital font) on the
grounds that it does not fulfill the “article ofmanufacture” requirement. However, thespecific scope to which a design patent rightfor a typeface extends is not clear because
there is no relevant court precedent. Typeface
protection under U.S. copyright law has been●

IIP Bulletin 2008

denied under case law, and typefaces are notprotected under copyright law. On the other
hand, font programs for creating typefaces
are copyrightable.
With regard to the methods of imitation,etc. of typefaces, there is frequent
distribution of pirated digital fonts and fonts
whose design is only subtly different from thedesign of the original typeface. Regarding theissue of such imitation, etc., designers andfontvendors
protect
theirown
commercialized fonts; specifically, theyprotect typeface designs by design patent andfont programs by copyright. In actual
practice, they also try to protect fonts from
imitation, etc. based on contracts. In addition,with regard to the issue of distribution of
pirated digital fonts, they take advantage of
the Business Software Alliance. Thoughpractitioners regard the protection of
typefaces by design patent as one of themeans of protecting font designs, they do notuse it much because the term of protection
granted under the design patent system is
too short for typefaces, which are used over along period of time, and because it is also
possible to protect typeface designs indirectly
by contract or copyright. On the other hand,
copyright registration of font programs isused as a measure against pirated copies, etc.
since the term of protection by copyright islong.
(2) Actual conditions of typeface protectionin Europe
The EU Design Directive was establishedin order to harmonize design systems within
the European Community and strengthen
protection of designs. It was examined so as
toincludeallvisibletwoorthree-dimensional designs in the subject
matter of protection under the design system.
Consequently, typefaces were also included in
the subject matter of protection. Therefore, it
was expressly provided in the Council
Regulation on Community Designs, which isbased on the EU Design Directive, that
typefaces are included in the subject matterof protection under the design system.
34 ●Through revision of domestic design laws by
each EC Member State in accordance withsaid Directive, the law was revised toexpressly provide that typefaces are includedin the subject matter of protection under thedesign system. Under the Council Regulation
on Community Designs, the subject matter ofprotection by design rights associated with
typefaces includes tangible items such as
types and font disks of phototypesetting
machines (analog fonts). However, digital
typeface data (including digital fonts) is notincluded in the subject matter of protection,
since computer programs are excluded fromthe definition of “product.” In addition, thespecific scope to which a Community design
right for a typeface extends is not clear, as
there is no relevant court precedent.
Incidentally, digital fonts are protected asprograms under the copyright law of each EC
Member State.
With regard to the issue of imitation, etc.
concerning typefaces in Europe, there is
distribution of pirated fonts and fonts whose
design is only subtly different from the designof the original typeface, and imitated fonts are
sold under other product names by third
parties. Popular typefaces are more likely to
be imitated. Designers and font vendors use
two means of protecting their own
commercialized fonts from such imitation,etc.; specifically, they protect typefaces bydesign patent and font programs throughcopyright registration. Copyright registrationof digital fonts is actively pursued, because
there are concerns that a judge who does nothave expertise in typefaces would determine
similarity between the registered design andinfringing design in the case of a lawsuit
based on a design right for a typeface, andbecause the distribution of pirated copies,
including dead copies, is handled by using
copyrights for font programs, for which theterm of protection is longer than for a design
right. On the other hand, the design system is
not utilized.

●(3) Actual conditions of typeface protectionin the Republic of Korea
In the Republic of Korea, at the time ofrevision of the Design Act in 2004, theKorean Intellectual Property Office changed
the title of the law to “Industrial Design
Protection Act,” and introduced express
provisions on typeface protection in the Act
by defining “articles” as including “styles ofcalligraphy” and thereby deeming a “style ofcalligraphy” as an “article.” A “style ofcalligraphy” under the Industrial Design
Protection Act does not include design of thestyle of calligraphy per se, but the subject
matter of protection by design right for astyle of calligraphy is understood as
including analog fonts such as types and fontdisks of phototypesetting machines, anddigital fonts such as electronic data
pertaining to calligraphy style design that isrecorded in computers or electronic media,
etc. and used for indicating or printing thestyle of calligraphy. Although a design rightis a monopolistic exclusive right, there areprovisions on limitation of the effects of sucha right for a typeface, stipulating that theeffects do not extend to the use of the style ofcalligraphy in an ordinary process such as
typing, typesetting or printing and the result
from using the style of calligraphy.
One issue of imitation, etc. concerning
typefaces is the distribution of unauthorizedcopies of digital fonts via the Internet, etc.
Typefaces that have been registered as
designs under the Industrial Design
Protection Act so far are distinctive styles ofcalligraphy that fulfill strict requirements,
such as novelty and difficulty of creation, andthese styles are not liable to suffer damages
from imitation, etc. as their distribution ismore limited than the distribution of styles ofcalligraphy for text that are in general use.
Therefore, the effect of introducing the legal
protection system for typefaces based on the
Industrial Design Protection Act as a meansof protecting against damages from imitation,etc. has yet to be sufficiently analyzed. On
the other hand, the introduction of thisprotection system is generally highly valued
35 ●IIP Bulletin 2008

by right holders, etc. since a new means ofprotecting fonts has become available.
However, in terms of the status of use of thesystem, it is used for advertising to users at
the time of concluding a contract concerninga typeface, and as a means of obtaining acertificate for a new style of calligraphy froma public institution, rather than foreliminating imitation, etc. of typefaces.

IV Circumstances Surrounding Typefaces
The domestic questionnaire survey anddomestic interview surveys revealed that thefollowing problems are arising in Japan inrelation to typefaces, etc.

1

Problems for Designers

Over 30% of typeface designers (34.6%)
answered that they have discovered problems
related to the theft of a design of a typeface
they have created. There are various forms oftheft, including the selling of similar fonts bycompanies that have not concluded a license
contract, publication of similar typefaces as
the creations of third parties, anddistribution of pirated fonts that have been
made based on the original typefaces. In
addition, over 20% of designers (23.1%) haveexperienced problems such as violation of acontract with regard to typefaces they havecreated. The types of violation of a contract
are often use beyond the scope of licensed use
or use in more terminals than licensed. The
following are cited as the specific forms ofsuch theft of a typeface design and violationof a contract: (i) use of a typeface created by adesigner for a logo or a TV ticker, etc. withoutauthorization and (ii) distribution of pirated
fonts.
With regard to the problems of theft of
typefaces and violation of contracts,
designers handle these problems throughmaking a complaint by issuing a letter of
warning. Consequently, in many cases these
problems are solved when the designer inquestion receives monetary compensation or
the other party stops selling and recalls the●

IIP Bulletin 2008

products in question. On the other hand, sucha complaint is also often ignored on the
grounds that there is no right for typefaces.

2

Problems for Font Vendors

Over 40% of font vendors (41.7%)
answered that they have experienced aproblem related to the theft of a design of afont they have created. The forms of theft
include the selling of similar fonts by otherpersons and circulation of reproduction fonts,
as well as selling by other companies of fontsthat are different from the original fonts but
are printed in the same appearance as theoriginals. In addition, although contract
problems sometimes occur in relationship todesigners through receipt of a warning to theeffect that the font vendor is selling a font
based on the theft of a typeface of thedesigner, problems in relationship to users
concerning violation of contracts are more
frequent, including use of a font beyond thescope of licensed use and use thereof in moreterminals than licensed. Distribution of
pirated fonts was cited as a specific form ofsuch theft of font designs and contract
problems.
With regard to the problems of theft offont designs and violation of contracts, fontvendors handle these problems throughmaking a complaint by issuing a letter of
warning. Consequently, in many cases these
problems are solved when the font vendor inquestion receives monetary compensation or
the other party stops selling and recalls the
products in question. On the other hand, sucha complaint is also often ignored on the
grounds that there is no right for typefaces.
According to the domestic interview surveys,
some font vendors ask the Association of
Copyright for Computer Software to handle
the problem of distribution of pirated fonts.

3

Problems for Users

As for users, problems such as receipt of
a warning rarely occur in terms of use of
fonts. With regard to font license contracts,
36 ●which users conclude with font vendors,
users seem to be dissatisfied with thefollowing points: (i) the relevant procedure iscomplicated; (ii) the scope of licensed use isunclear; (iii) it is cumbersome to confirm thescope of licensed use of individual fonts since
the scope of such use differs with respect toeach font vendor; (iv) it is necessary toconclude a new contract to use the same fontwhen the equipment used or type of font ischanged or when software is upgraded.

V

Problems Related to Typefaces, etc.

In considering how typefaces should beprotected under law in Japan, on the basis of
the results of the domestic questionnaire
survey and domestic interview surveys,
relationships among parties concerned wereclassified and organized based on theirpositions – specifically, designer, font vendor
and user (in what follows, designer and fontvendor are collectively called “supplier” insome cases) – and the existence of acontractual relationship. Then, the committee
considered the identification of problems
related to typefaces, etc. in each area andapproaches to solving these problems based on
the current legal protection of typefaces, aswell as the handling of these problems.

1

IdentificationofProblems
Approaches to Solution Thereofand(1) Problems Between a Supplier and a User
Who Have a Contractual RelationshipThe following are cited as problems thatarise between a supplier and a user who havea contractual relationship: (i) use of a fontbeyond the scope of licensed use (commercial
use of a font of which commercial use has notbeen licensed) and (ii) use of a font at moreterminals, etc. than licensed (for example,
the act of installing a font, for which use atonly one terminal has been licensed, on ten
terminals). These problems are basicallymatters of violation of contract. It is thus
possible to question the responsibility undercontract law of a party to the contract who●

has used the font beyond the scope of the fontlicense contract. On the other hand, as thedifficulty for users to understand the content
of licenses presented by font vendors is cited
as one of the causes of such violations, if fontvendors standardize the way of presenting
the content of a font license contract to users
to make it easier for users to confirm thecontent of a font license, etc. and also
encourage users to improve their awarenessof compliance with the content of contracts,
the solution of problems will be promoted to acertain extent.
(2) Problems Between a Supplier and aUser Who Do Not Have a Contractual
RelationshipThe following are cited as problems thatarise between a supplier and a user who do
not have a contractual relationship: (i)distribution, etc. of pirated digital fonts and(ii) use of pirated fonts and similar fonts. In
addition, (iii) use of a typeface for a logo, etc.
is cited as a problem that arises between adesigner and a user.
Regarding approaches to the solution ofthese problems, for (i), it is possible, in somecases, to cope with pirated font software
based on the Copyright Act, deeming it as a
product that infringes a program copyright.
In addition, solution of the problem will bepromoted to a certain extent by taking
technical measures, such as setting copy
protection pertaining to a font in cooperation
with manufacturers of software, computersand other equipment related to the operationof fonts, in order to prevent the distributionof pirated copies.
For (ii), the problem of distribution ofsimilar fonts is now not common. In addition,
solution of this problem will be promoted to acertain extent by preventing the distributionof pirated fonts because, in fact, similar fonts
are often made by making some alterations topirated fonts. In addition, it is considered
important that designers and font vendors
carry out educational activities so that those
who do not have a contractual relationshipwill not use pirated or similar fonts.
37 ●IIP Bulletin 2008

For (iii), it is difficult for designers tohandle the problem based on current systems
for the legal protection of typefaces. However,even if a new type of legal protection is
granted for typefaces, it is consideredinappropriate to extend legal protection –which should be granted for a typeface as aset – to logos, etc. in which part of thetypeface is used. This is because such an
extension of protection is likely to inhibit thesmooth use of characters by users.
(3) Problems Between Competitors Who Do
Not Have a Contractual RelationshipThe following are cited as problems thatarise between competitors who do not have acontractual relationship (between designers,
between font vendors or between a designer
and a font vendor): (i) creation of similar
typefaces and (ii) sale of similar fonts.
According to interview surveys that wereconducted targeting those who had answeredin the domestic questionnaire survey thatsuch problems exist, the reality of these
problems consists of use beyond the scope of
licensed use by users and the making anddistribution of pirated fonts by extracting
font data from equipment with the original
fonts installed. The survey revealed thatproblems (i) and (ii) have seldom occurred inrecent years between competitors who do nothave a contractual relationship.
It was also pointed out that creating a
new framework of legal protection in addition
to existing frameworks for legal protection is
not necessarily an effective approach tosolving most existing problems, under thepresent circumstances where the problems ofcreation and sale of similar typefaces andfonts are not frequent, since it is evenpossible to protect typefaces and fonts under
tort law or the Unfair Competition
Prevention Act at present.

2

Handling of Problems

stated that the active need for establishing
new legal protection beyond the protection
granted under the current law has not been
sufficiently clarified at this moment.
In addition, with regard to problems
related to fonts, it was pointed out that these
problems are similar to those arising in termsoflicensecontractsforreproducible
information in general or programs andcomputerized information in general, and thatthe solution of the problems will be promoted
to a certain extent by handling them based onprotection under contract law and current
intellectual property law or by suppliers’
taking technical measures as self-help efforts.
Moreover, with regard to problems between
suppliers and end users, such as unauthorized
use of a font beyond the scope of licensed use
and distribution of pirated copies, there wasan opinion that, though it is necessary toconsider the possibility of taking realistic
measures because of the large scale of the
problems and the large number of relevantcases, the need for new legal protection for
typefaces should not be found from this point,since the legal base – including thepossibility of handling based on theinfringement of a program copyright – hasalready been established to a certain extent,
irrespective of the existence of a contractual
relationship. On the other hand, those in thetypeface-related industry expressed thefollowing opinion: in making a typeface into a
font, a designer claims that “the typeface is
his/her own creation,” and the designer and afont vendor conclude some sort of license
contract for the typeface as a commercial
practice; however, the method of handling theinfringement of typefaces by third parties isseen as a problem since there is no clear legal
protection for typefaces, which are the objectof such contracts. In this regard, there wasan opinion that the specific legal problems towhich such concerns point and the limits ofhandling based on legal protection undercurrent law are still unclear.

With regard to typefaces, there are few
problems
that
are
based
on
their
characteristics. Many committee members●

IIP Bulletin 200838 ●

VI Possibility of New Legal Protection
for Typefaces
Problems based on the characteristics oftypefaces are not clear at the present moment.
However, the committee considered adesirable new method of legal protection on
the basis of the characteristics of typefaces asintellectual property, since there were no
objections to the point that typefaces fallunder the category of intellectual property.

1

Possibility of Protection Under theCurrent Design Act

With regard to the possibility ofprotection under the current Design Act, there
is room to consider including typefaces in thesubject matter of protection under the Act –which is aimed at encouraging the creation ofdesigns through promoting the protection andutilization of designs and thereby contributing
to the development of industry – because
typefaces are created from a practical
viewpoint, or from the viewpoint of industrial
application.
However, protection of typefaces under
the current Japanese Design Act does not fit
with the characteristics of design rights, theframework of the design system – including
the requirements for protection under the
Design Act – and the part related to the basisof design rights. In other words, as typefaces
are created based on a common recognition
within a literate culture, the more practical a
typeface is, the more likely it is to be similar
to existing characters. Therefore, if rights for
typefaces extend to similar designs like design
rights and negligence at the time of
infringement is presumed, the development ofpractical typefaces is particularly likely to be
curtailed. This may conflict with the purposeof the Design Act. Moreover, typefaces are theshapes of characters that cannot be
categorized as articles, and are used not only
in running a business but also for various
purposes in daily life. Therefore, if a design
right – which is an exclusive right to work theregistered design and designs similar thereto●

as a business – is granted for a typeface,which is an intangible item, the right will
have significantly wide-reaching effects andbecome excessively strong compared to thedesign rights for articles. This not only lacks
balance between such rights but may also
inhibit the smooth communication of
information. Furthermore, in terms of actual
practice, the committee members expressed
many concerns about the method of
examination in terms of novelty and difficultyof creation, and the method of determining
similarity in the case of infringement wheretypefaces are protected under the design
system, in the current situation where neither
the method nor standard for determining
similarity between typefaces has been
established, even within the typeface-relatedindustry.
To include typefaces in the subject matterof protection under the Design Act, it isnecessary to set special provisions that are
only applicable to typefaces or to implement a
fundamental review of the design system.
However, it is not conceivable at present tosubject the Design Act to a drastic andimmediate revision for the sole purpose ofprotecting typefaces, taking into account the
point
that
problems
based
on
the
characteristics of typefaces are not currently
clear, as well as the effect of reform of thedesign system on users of the design system
as a whole and on the creation anddistribution of typefaces.

2

Desirable New
Protection

Methodof

Legal

The committee considered a desirable
method of legal protection for typefaces in thecase of granting protection for typefaces basedon a new protection system distinct from theframework of the existing intellectual
property law system, since parts of thecurrent system, including the Design Act, do
not suit typeface protection. Specifically, thecommittee considered the purpose of legal
protection of typefaces, and formality andsubstantive requirements for protection and
39 ●IIP Bulletin 2008

the scope of legal protection granted for
typefaces.
However, granting some sort of legal
protection for typefaces, which are based on
characters that serve as the medium ofcommunication, may affect not only theindustry but also the lives of the generalpublic, depending on the scope of legal
protection. Therefore, it is necessary toestablish a system that will not curtail theuse of typefaces, and it is thus necessary tocarefully consider the legal protection to be
granted in line with specific problems.
Consequently, it is too early to grant newlegal protection for typefaces, under thecurrent situation where problems based on
the characteristics of typefaces are notnecessarily clear, since there remain many
problems that have to be carefully consideredwhen deciding a desirable method ofprotection in order to establish a newframework for legal protection. For thisreason, the committee decided to organize thepoints at issue regarding a desirable new
method of legal protection in light of thecharacteristics of typefaces. The need for new
legal protection for typefaces is expected to be
examined when problems based on thecharacteristics of typefaces become obvious in
the future. We hope that, at that time, thematters discussed by this committee willserve as a basis for taking the necessary
measures to solve the problems.
（Reseacher: Tomoko NAKATSUKA）●

IIP Bulletin 200840 ●