In 2000, the plaintiff and the defendant information center concluded a contract for the use of the pictograms in this case, with a term of one year starting March 31, 2000, extended for one year if neither party objected by one month before the contract ended, and the same method applying thereafter. Meanwhile, the defendant information center's purpose in concluding the contract to use the pictograms was to display them on tourist information signs installed by the City of Osaka on August 31, 2000. Later, in May 2011, the plaintiff and the defendant information center disagreed over the use of the pictograms and failed to reach an agreement, so the defendant information center decided to stop using the pictograms. The plaintiff then demanded, on the basis of the duty to restore the original state, the removal of the pictograms as well as payment of damages.

The court held that, under Article 2(1)(ii) of the Japanese Copyright Act, a work is a creative expression of thoughts or sentiments, and further stated that the pictograms in this case belong to the category of applied art because they function to make it easy for people to understand the target facilities through their visual sense. It also acknowledged that, because a pictogram is a sign that visualizes a concept based on the shape of the object it depicts, it cannot depart from the shape of the target facility, so the scope for creativity is limited. Considering these points comprehensively, the court held that the pictograms were copyrightable, on the ground that they expressed the plaintiff's individuality and creativity and were also excellent functionally, and so qualified as applied art.

Park Yun-jeong, [2016-08 Japan] Osaka District Court recognizes the copyrightability of "pictograms" for the first time in Japan, Copyright Trends, Korea Copyright Commission, 2016.

This case concerns whether the shape of a pet dog house is protected by copyright. The original creator created a pet dog house (the "work in this case") resembling the shape of the character Mickey Mouse or a panda. It is spherical overall, its bottom is flat and round, and at the front is a large round opening that can be used as an entrance. Seen as a whole, decorations shaped like ears are attached to the top. A band wraps around the middle of the exterior, excluding the entrance. The original creator registered it with the Korea Copyright Commission under the title "Showy."

Later, the plaintiff transferred the economic rights in the work to the defendant in this case and completed registration of the copyright transfer. Meanwhile, the plaintiff made and sold dog houses with shapes similar or identical to the work. The defendant then, on the basis of being the holder of the economic rights in the work, demanded that the plaintiff stop producing and selling products identical or similar to the work. In addition, it applied for a payment order for damages, demanding that the plaintiff and those who bought the similar or identical dog houses stop infringing the copyright in the work.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that no copyright existed, arguing that the work does not qualify under the Copyright Act. Its arguments were that the work lacks originality because it simply imitated and gave shape to "Mickey Mouse," the signature character of the world-famous Walt Disney company, and that it cannot be recognized as a work because the independence from the article used is not recognized, so it cannot be regarded as a work of applied art. Accordingly, whether the work in this case is copyrightable emerged as the main issue.

Article 4(11)(4) of the Copyright Act sets out works of applied art as one area of works. In addition, Article 2(15) of the Act defines a work of applied art as "a work of art, including a design, that can be reproduced in identical form on articles and whose independence can be recognized as distinct from the article in which it is used." In other words, to be recognized as a work of applied art protected by the Copyright Act, the requirements of reproducibility and separability must be met. The details of this will be covered next.

On this basis, the court considered that the work in this case can be said to belong to works of applied art, and that, considering its shape, components, arrangement and form, it cannot be said to lack aesthetic elements entirely, but it is difficult to regard it as conceptually departing from a utilitarian article so as to be applied to other utilitarian articles, or as a means of artistic appreciation in itself.

For reference, where part of the material says Article 4(11)(4) of the Copyright Act, it refers to Article 4(1)(4) (works of art, including works of applied art). It is also good to check the number of the wholly amended act mentioned in the introduction in the legislative history at the National Law Information Center. In its 2017 decision Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, the U.S. Supreme Court set out the separability test under which the design of a useful article is protected if it can be perceived as an independent work of art separate from the article, so try citing it in the comparison section as well.