Overview of prominent display abuse
The act of using another person's famous product display (product, sales, etc.) is an unfair competition act as an act of using the famous product display.
If it is admitted in the act of misappropriation of the prominent display and the proceedings, injunction and compensation for damages can be made to another person who is using the prominent display such as the table.
Articles of prominent display abuse (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law)
Use the same or similar product label as your own product label, or transfer the product using the product label, display it for delivery, transfer or delivery, and export it. Acts of importing or providing through telecommunications lines (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law)
Requirements recognized as an act of prominent display abuse
In order to be recognized as an act of prominent display, it is necessary to (1) display the product, etc., (2) display the product, etc., (3) display the same or similar product, etc., and (4) use the product, etc. label. There is.
① What is product display?
The product display is a display that indicates the source of the product or the entity of the business, and specifically refers to the name, trade name, trademark, mark, container of the product, etc. related to the business of a person.
The trademark does not have to be registered.
(2) What is the prominent display of the product?
It needs to be known nationwide
* Unlike the act of inducing confusion (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law), the act of misusing a prominent display (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law) does not require confusion as a requirement. Therefore, it is understood that publicity in one region is not enough, and publicity at the national level is necessary.
Differences from the act of causing confusion (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law)
Confusion is not a requirement for prominent labeling abuse (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law).
Isn't confusion a requirement?
For example, if the name of the luxury brand Chanel is used for a love hotel, no confusion will occur.
Chanel is well known as a luxury brand.
It's generally unlikely that the luxury brand Chanel runs a love hotel, so if you use the luxury brand Chanel for a love hotel, you won't be confused. I can think of it.
In an era when there was no provision for prominent labeling abuse (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law), the Kobe District Court was confused in a broad sense when using the name of the luxury brand Chanel for a love hotel. Was recognized as an unfair competition act (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law) and was recognized as an unfair competition act (Love Hotel Chanel Case (Kobe District Court 62.3.25)).
Although the conclusion is valid, the legal community has criticized that the application of the law is not valid, and it is said that the act of misappropriating prominent labeling (Unfair Competition Prevention Law, Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 2) was enacted. There is a history.
In order to be recognized as an act of misappropriation of prominent display (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law), confusion is not a requirement, but prominence is a requirement.
