If you are subjected to business interference through the misuse of false intellectual property infringement claims, a possible civil law claim is to seek damages based on tort under Article 709 of the Japanese Civil Law (\u6c11\u6cd5\u7b2c709\u6761).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n(Damages for Tortious Acts) Article 709: A person who intentionally or negligently infringes the rights or legally protected interests of another person shall be liable to compensate for the damage arising therefrom.<\/p>\nJapanese Civil Law (\u6c11\u6cd5) Article 709<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nArticle 709 of the Japanese Civil Law establishes the right to claim damages based on tortious acts. In social life, various troubles can arise. Therefore, Article 709 provides for cases where the victim can claim compensation for damages from the perpetrator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this case, if a seller’s product information is unjustly removed due to a false intellectual property claim, the following damages could be claimed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nLost profits due to the inability to sell the product as the listing was suspended.<\/li>\n\n\n\n Personnel costs (expenses) for handling the matter.<\/li>\n\n\n\n Legal fees incurred when engaging a lawyer for litigation procedures.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\nWhile not all of these claims may be recognized as damages by the court, it is conceivable to claim them as damages in a lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Defending Against False Claims of Intellectual Property Infringement under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Understanding the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (Anti-Unfair Competition Law)<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe Unfair Competition Prevention Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law”) was established as a law complementing various other laws, with the primary goal of ensuring fair competition among businesses and the proper functioning of the market economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is indeed a law designed to prevent improper competitive practices among businesses and, in cases where such competition occurs, to impose sanctions such as fines and imprisonment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Claims under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act in Cases of Business Interference<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nWhen subjected to business interference through the misuse of false intellectual property infringement claims, one possible course of action is to seek damages for defamation of business reputation based on Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 21, and Article 4 of the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act (\u4e0d\u6b63\u7af6\u4e89\u9632\u6b62\u6cd5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nArticle 2: For the purposes of this Act, “unfair competition” refers to the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Item 21: Acts of notifying or disseminating false facts that harm the business reputation of a competitor.Source: Unfair Competition Prevention Act, Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 21, and Article 4<\/em><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nArticle 2, Paragraph 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act lists multiple types of conduct that constitute unfair competition, with Item 21 defining acts of defamation as such conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, Article 4 of the Act stipulates the circumstances under which a claim for damages can be made for acts of unfair competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the following court case example, the act of making a false trademark infringement claim was recognized as “a false fact that harms the business reputation of the plaintiff, who is in competition with the defendant, and constitutes an act of unfair competition under Item 21 of Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Act.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regarding damages, as with claims based on tortious acts, there is a possibility that lost profits and other damages may be recognized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Case Examples Involving False Claims of Intellectual Property Infringement<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nFinally, we present two case examples where sellers on Amazon made damage claims after being falsely accused of intellectual property infringement, and the claims were upheld in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u25b6 Osaka District Court Decision, May 11, Reiwa 5 (2023) (Case No. Reiwa 3 (Wa) 11472)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u25a0 Case Summary<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The plaintiff, who sold Korean idol merchandise on Amazon, was accused by the defendant, who sold similar products, of infringing the defendant’s copyright with images used on Amazon. As a result, the plaintiff’s transactions were suspended. The plaintiff claimed that the accusations were false and filed for damages based on Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 21 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act) and Article 709 of the Civil Code (Japanese Civil Code), which was accepted by the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u25a0 Court Findings<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u30fbThe defendant’s images did not possess originality to qualify as copyrighted works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u30fbThe defendant’s false claims that the plaintiff was infringing copyright were acts of declaring false facts that damaged the business reputation of the plaintiff, who was in competition with the defendant, and constituted an act of unfair competition under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 21 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u25b6 Tokyo District Court Decision, July 10, Reiwa 2 (2020) (Case No. Heisei 30 (Wa) 22428)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u25a0 Case Summary<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The plaintiff, who sold pillows and mattresses on Amazon, was accused by the defendant of infringing the defendant’s trademark rights with the plaintiff’s products. The plaintiff claimed that these accusations were false and filed for damages based on Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 21 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and Article 709 of the Civil Code, which was accepted by the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u25a0 Court Findings<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u30fbThe plaintiff’s products did not infringe on any of the defendant’s trademark rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u30fbThe claims made were intended to suggest that the plaintiff’s products infringed on the defendant’s trademark rights, and the content of these claims was false and damaged the business reputation of the plaintiff, who was in competition with the defendant. This constituted an act of unfair competition under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 21 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to seek an injunction against the defendant to prevent the dissemination or publication of false facts that the plaintiff’s products infringed on the defendant’s trademark rights to third parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n