Date of
Judgment: June 4, 1965
Issuing
Authority: Supreme
Court
Level of
the Issuing Authority: Final Instance
Type of
Procedure: Judicial
(Civil)
Subject
Matter: Other
Main
text of the judgment (decision):
1. The final appeal shall be
dismissed.
2. Appellant shall bear the
court cost of the final appeal.
Reasons:
Regarding
Reason 1 for the final appeal according to the attorneys representing
Appellants,
namely; ●●●●, ●●●●, ●●●●, ●●●●, ●●●●, and ●●●●.
Even if Appellee Company indicates,
simply, "ライナー" as the product
name on the container, packaging, and advertisement for the Product
manufactured by Appellee Company, in addition to indicating Appellee Company's
trade name, "ライナービヤー株式会社 ", and its English
name, "LINER BEER Co., LTD.", thereon, it is reasonable to interpret,
based on the empirical rule, that the indications are not immediately
misleading and do not create confusion with the beers manufactured by Appellant
Companies. Accordingly, there is no illegality, as per the asserted opinion, with
the ruling made by the court of prior instance whose purport is the same as the
above.
The ruling made by the court of prior
instance to the effect that, in the case where the indication of a trade name
placed on the container and packaging of a product is based on the provisions
of Article 86-5 of the Act on Securing of Liquor Tax and on Liquor Business
Associations and Article 8-3 of the Order for Enforcement of the same Act, an
injunction against the use of such indication cannot be sought pursuant to
Article 1, item (v) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, constitutes a
so-called supportive argument, which clearly does not influence the conclusion
of the judgment in prior instance. As such, the asserted opinion which attacks
the above ruling by considering it to be illegal cannot constitute lawful
grounds for the final appeal.
Therefore, the gist of the argument is
entirely groundless.
Regarding
Reason 2 for the final appeal.
The indication of "ライナービヤー"
consists of a proper noun, "ライナー", to which a common
noun, "ビヤー", is added, and it
goes without saying that these nouns can be separated. The court of prior
instance held that, if Appellee Company merely indicates "ライナー"
on the container, packaging, and advertisement for the Product manufactured by
Appellee Company, it is not misleading and does not create confusion with the
beers that are manufactured and sold by Appellant Companies in regards to the
description of the quality of the Product, so that an injunction cannot be
sought for the indication of "ライナー", let alone for the
indication of "ビヤー", and this ruling
made by the court of prior instance is justified in light of the conventional
wisdom.
Accordingly,
there is no illegality with the judgment in prior instance, as per the asserted
opinion, and the asserted opinion, which eventually attributes to an attack
being made against the judgment in prior instance by taking a stance that is
different from the one described above, cannot be accepted.
Regarding
Reason 3 for the final appeal.
The judgment of the court of prior
instance to the effect that it cannot be acknowledged that there is a risk of
Appellee Company using the indication of "LINER BEER" for Product,
either currently or in the future, is reasonable in light of the evidence
submitted. Accordingly, the judgment in prior instance has no illegality, as
per the asserted opinion, and the asserted opinion, which eventually attributes
to an attack being made against the ruling made about the evidence and against
the fact finding by the court of prior instance, which belongs to the exclusive
right of the court of prior instance, cannot be accepted.
Regarding
Reason 4 for the final appeal.
The judgment of the court of the prior
instance to the effect that it is very unlikely that Appellee Company currently
manufactures and sells "ライナー黒ビヤー" is reasonable in
light of the evidence submitted. Accordingly, there is no illegality with the
judgment in prior instance, as per the asserted opinion, and the asserted
opinion, which eventually attributes to an attack being made against the ruling
about the evidence and against the fact finding by the court of prior instance,
which belongs to the exclusive right of the court of prior instance, cannot be
accepted.
Regarding
Reason 5 for the final appeal.
The court of prior instance held that it
cannot be said that the mere fact that Appellee Company uses the alphabetic
letters, "LINER", "LINER BEER", and "LINER BEER Co.,
LTD.", and the like in labels and advertisements for Appellee Company's
products, along with Japanese texts, can be considered to cause a risk that
Appellee Company will export these products overseas. This judgment is
justified in light of the empirical rule. Accordingly, the judgment in prior
instance has no illegality, as per the asserted opinion, and the gist of the
argument is groundless.
Therefore,
the judgment of this court is rendered unanimously by all judges, as per the
main text, by application of Articles 401, 95, 89, and 93 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
(This translation is
provisional and subject to revision.)