Date of Judgment: July 19, 1988
Issuing Authority: Supreme Court
Level of the Issuing
Authority: Final Instance
Type of Procedure: Judicial (Civil)
Subject Matter: Unfair Competition Prevention
Summary of the
judgment (decision):
1. The timing
at which indications, such as a name, trade name, and trademark, for
distinguishing a person's own goods should acquire well knownness as stipulated
in Article 1, paragraph (1), item (i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act
is, in relation to a claim for injunction against the act of creating confusion
with the agent of goods as stipulated in the same item, the time of conclusion
of oral arguments during the fact-finding proceedings in a lawsuit involving a
demand for injunction, and, in relation to a claim for compensation for damages
for the above act, the time when the act, which is the subject of a claim for
compensation for damages, took place.
2. In the
case where the scope of claims for utility model registration is amended after
a third party learns of the content of a device pertaining to a published
application for utility model registration, if the amendment restricts the
scope of claims for utility model registration, and if the article worked by
the third party belongs to the technical scope of the device throughout the
period before and after the amendment, in order for the applicant for utility
model registration to demand against the third party for payment of
compensation as stipulated in Article 13-3, paragraph (1) of the Utility Model
Act, it is not necessary for the third party to learn of the content of the
amended scope of claims for the utility model registration by way of repeated
warnings or the like by the applicant of the utility model registration.
(This
translation is provisional and subject to revision.)