## Facts

- A corporate rights holder and related entities owned and managed rights associated with the long-running U.S. comic strip featuring the sailor character “Popeye,” first published in 1929.
- Each comic installment was published as a self-contained episode within an ongoing series, with later episodes adding new plots and sometimes new characters while continuing to depict Popeye with the same core visual features.
- A Japanese company sold neckties in Japan beginning around May 1982 bearing a figure closely resembling Popeye along with the words “POPEYE/ポパイ” (“Design 1”).
- The rights holder sued seeking, among other relief, an injunction and damages, asserting that (i) the Popeye character was independently protected by copyright, or (ii) the necktie design reproduced protected expression from the comic episodes.
- Related entities asserted claims under unfair competition law based on the use of “POPEYE” and the character figure as a source identifier.
- The defendant argued that the copyright term for the first 1929 episode had expired in Japan (by May 1990), and alternatively claimed it had acquired a reproduction right by prescription through long-term exploitation of Popeye images on textile goods.
- The trial court granted copyright-based injunctive relief (and denied damages for lack of proof); the appellate court affirmed and awarded damages.
- The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court; in connection with unfair-competition issues, a trademark registration relied upon by the defendant as a defense was invalidated after the close of fact-finding in the lower courts.

## Issues

1. Whether a recurring comic-strip “character,” abstracted as a consistent persona with name, appearance, and role, is itself a copyrightable work.
2. To what extent later episodes in a serialized comic qualify as secondary works, and what parts of such works receive protection.
3. Whether, after the copyright term for the first episode has expired, the rights holder may rely on unexpired later-episode copyrights to prevent use of the character’s basic depiction already expressed in the first episode.
4. What qualifies as continuous “exercise” of the reproduction right sufficient to establish acquisitive prescription, and which party bears the burden of proof.
5. Whether a party may invoke, at the Supreme Court stage, a post–fact-finding trademark invalidation that bears on a trademark-based defense to an unfair-competition claim.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the appellate judgment insofar as it granted copyright-based injunctive relief regarding Design 1 and dismissed that portion of the copyright owner’s claim.
- The Court held that an abstract “character” persona is not, by itself, a copyrightable work.
- The Court held that later comic episodes may be secondary works, but protection in a secondary work extends only to newly creative parts, not to elements common to and essentially the same as the original work.
- The Court held that where the essential depiction of the recurring character was fully expressed in the first episode, expiration of the first episode’s term bars asserting copyright to that depiction, even if later episodes remain protected.
- The Court rejected the defendant’s claim of acquisitive prescription of the reproduction right because the defendant failed to prove exclusive, owner-like exercise of the reproduction right.
- The Court allowed reliance on the post–fact-finding trademark invalidation as a new circumstance relevant to the trademark-based defense and left intact relief grounded in unfair competition law.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protects concrete expression, not an abstract character persona derived from multiple works; a recurring character as such is not independently copyrightable.
- In a secondary work, copyright arises only in the parts newly endowed with creativity; protection does not extend to parts that are common with, and essentially the same as, the original work.
- If a character’s essential visual depiction was already fully expressed in an earlier work, expiration of that earlier work’s term places that depiction beyond copyright control; later works cannot be used to reassert exclusivity over the same depiction.
- Acquisitive prescription of a reproduction right requires proof that the claimant externally appeared to exercise the right exclusively and preemptively in an owner-like manner; the burden of proof rests on the party asserting prescription.
- Post–fact-finding events that directly affect a defense (such as invalidation of a relied-upon trademark registration) may be raised at the Supreme Court stage as a new circumstance affecting the outcome.

## Conclusion

The court denied copyright-based control over a basic comic character depiction once the first work fixing that depiction had entered the public domain, while maintaining a narrow view of protectable material in later serialized episodes and imposing a demanding standard for acquisitive prescription; it also confirmed that unfair competition principles and post-trial trademark invalidation could still affect liability and defenses.


King Features Syndicate, Inc. v. Y Co., 51 Saiko Saibansho Minji Hanreishu [Minshu] 2714 (Sup. Ct. Japan 1997)