## Facts

- K.K. Tsuburaya Productions, a Japanese company, held copyrights in a film within the *Ultraman* franchise.
- Chaiyo Film Co., Ltd., a Thai company, claimed an early-1970s written agreement granted it exclusive foreign exploitation rights to the film and related works; Tsuburaya alleged the agreement was forged.
- Tsuburaya licensed exploitation rights to a Japanese company (Bandai), including rights affecting parts of Southeast Asia.
- Chaiyo sent warnings to Bandai asserting Bandai’s exploitation infringed Chaiyo’s claimed exclusive foreign rights.
- Tsuburaya sued Chaiyo in Japan seeking (i) a declaration that the purported contract was invalid, (ii) injunctive relief against interference with licensing relationships, and (iii) damages for alleged tortious conduct based on the warnings and interference.
- The district court dismissed for lack of international jurisdiction; the high court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Japanese courts have international civil jurisdiction over a foreign defendant where the dispute concerns alleged foreign exploitation rights under a purported contract with a Japanese rights holder.
2. Whether alleged wrongful warnings directed at a Japanese licensee and resulting economic harm in Japan provide a sufficient jurisdictional connection.
3. Whether related contract-validity and tort-interference claims may be heard together in Japan to avoid fragmented litigation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Japan reversed the dismissal and held Japanese courts had international jurisdiction over Chaiyo.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings on the merits, including the authenticity of the alleged contract and the alleged torts.
- The Court relied on the dispute’s substantial connection to Japan, including the Japanese plaintiff, a Japan-based licensee, and Japan-centered harmful effects.
- The Court concluded that litigating in Japan was foreseeable for Chaiyo and not an unfair burden given its asserted rights in Japanese intellectual property and conduct directed at a Japanese company.

## Legal Principles

- In determining international jurisdiction, Japanese courts may extend domestic territorial jurisdiction concepts to cross-border disputes, subject to reasonableness considerations.
- A jurisdictional basis is supported when alleged tortious interference produces substantial harmful effects in Japan, including economic injury to Japan-based commercial relationships.
- Foreseeability and fairness to the foreign defendant are relevant to whether asserting jurisdiction is reasonable, including whether the defendant purposefully engaged with Japan-related rights or directed conduct at Japan-based actors.
- Closely connected contract and tort claims arising from a single controversy may be adjudicated together in Japan to reduce duplicative proceedings and inconsistent outcomes.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that Japan was an appropriate forum to hear a Japanese copyright owner’s combined contract-validity and tort-interference claims against a Thai company because the alleged interference targeted a Japanese licensee and the resulting harm was centered in Japan, making jurisdiction fair and foreseeable.


K.K. Tsuburaya Prods. v. Chaiyo Film Co., 55 Minshū (No. 4) 727 (Sup. Ct. Japan 2001)