## Facts

- Kabushiki Kaisha Rafine (Rafine) sold products aimed at addressing “sick-house syndrome,” a condition described as people experiencing new illnesses after moving into newly built or renovated residences.
- Rafine operated an online sales website that included photographs of its products and written statements presented as comments from people suffering from sick-house syndrome.
- Plus-Marks Co., Ltd. and TMP Plus Co., Ltd. sold similar products online and used product photos and written statements that Toraiaru claimed were similar to those on Rafine’s website.
- Rafine assigned its business goodwill to Yugen Kaisha Toraiaru (Toraiaru).
- Relying on that assignment, Toraiaru filed a copyright infringement action against Plus-Marks and TMP based on the alleged similarities between the websites’ photos and statements.
- The lower court dismissed Toraiaru’s claims, and Toraiaru appealed to the Intellectual Property High Court (Fourth Division).

## Issues

1. Whether the product photographs and the sick-house-syndrome statements on Rafine’s website were protected works under Japan’s Copyright Act.
2. Whether the defendants’ use of similar product photos and statements on their website constituted copyright infringement.
3. Whether Toraiaru, as Rafine’s successor by assignment of goodwill, could assert the claimed copyrights and infringement claims.
4. Whether Toraiaru was entitled to any relief (such as damages or an injunction) on the asserted record.

## Decision

- The Intellectual Property High Court rejected Toraiaru’s appeal and left the dismissal of its claims in place.
- The court concluded that Toraiaru did not establish copyright infringement based on the claimed similarities between Rafine’s website materials and the defendants’ online materials.
- As a result, Toraiaru recovered no damages and obtained no injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protection extends to original expression, not to product ideas, general marketing themes, or common factual scenarios described in everyday language.
- A plaintiff must show copying of protected expressive elements; resemblance at a general level is not enough by itself to prove infringement.
- Photographs and short consumer statements used in online commerce may receive protection only to the extent they reflect creative expression rather than routine, functional presentation.
- A party suing as a successor must show that it holds the rights it seeks to enforce (including, where relevant, the copyrights or the right to pursue infringement claims).

## Conclusion

The Intellectual Property High Court affirmed the dismissal of Toraiaru’s suit, holding that Toraiaru failed to prove copyright infringement arising from the defendants’ online use of product photographs and sick-house-syndrome statements that were allegedly similar to materials previously displayed on Rafine’s sales website.


Chiteki Zaisan Koto Saibansho Dai 4-bu, Hesei 17 (Ne) no. 10094 (2006)