2026.07.31

【Radio Drama】Who Owns the ZOOM Trademark? — An original script_ゆるカワ商標ラジオ (Yurukawa TM Radio)＃222

An original script was created based on actual trademark lawsuits in Japan involving Zoom, a Japanese audio equipment company, and Zoom, a U.S. video conferencing company. At the time the script was prepared based on several broadcasts, the written judgment in the trademark infringement lawsuit had not yet been published on the court’s website.

Apple Podcast  Spotify

▼Radio drama script
### Cast of Characters
– **Attorney Soma** — Plaintiff’s counsel. Female. Cool-headed and razor-sharp.
– **President Sumita** — President of Zoom Corporation. Male. Outwardly calm, inwardly passionate.
– **Roberto Matsumoto** — Head of Legal & IP at Zoom Video Communications. Second-generation Japanese-American. Male. Speaks casually and directly, with a laid-back American flair, due to years spent in Japan as a child.
– **Ono** — Legal counsel at the Japan subsidiary. Male. Timid and anxious.
– **Judge** — Female. Elderly. Gentle, but piercing.

—

## Scene 1 — Soma’s Narration

**Attorney Soma:**
I’m a lawyer who specializes in corporate law. Lately, most of my work involves intellectual property — trademarks, copyright, that sort of thing.

In Japan, many people feel a certain resistance to filing a lawsuit.
*”I don’t want this to become a legal matter.”*
*”I’d rather settle things quietly.”*
I understand that instinct perfectly.

But litigation is one of the tools available when a dispute between parties has reached a dead end — a way to move things forward, toward resolution. When it’s necessary to protect your interests, it should be used.

The client who came to my office this time was the president of Zoom Corporation, a manufacturer of audio equipment.

—

## Scene 2 — The First Consultation

**President Sumita:**
Attorney Soma, thank you for seeing me today.

**Attorney Soma:**
I’ve reviewed the materials.
This concerns Zoom Video Communications, correct?

**President Sumita:**
Yes. We’ve been receiving inquiries about the video conferencing Zoom.
Things like — “I can’t join a meeting” or “I want to cancel my account.”

**Attorney Soma:**
Inquiries that have nothing to do with your company.

**President Sumita:**
Exactly. We’re an audio equipment manufacturer.
Recorders, microphones, headphones — we work with sound.

**Attorney Soma:**
Your company was founded in 1983?

**President Sumita:**
That’s right.
We’re not a flashy company, but we’ve worked steadily, day after day.
We’ve spared no effort when it comes to sound quality.
As a result, our products have earned a strong reputation among audio professionals — radio broadcasters, musicians, and the like.

**Attorney Soma:**
Do your products carry the Zoom name?

**President Sumita:**
Yes. The logo appears on both the products and the packaging.
So honestly — having someone else use the same name is a real problem for us.
But they’re a global service.
Will they even take us seriously?

**Attorney Soma:**
Sending a cease-and-desist letter is possible.
However, there are some concerns.

**President Sumita:**
Concerns?

**Attorney Soma:**
Your registered trademark is not a plain word — “ZOOM” in standard letters — but a stylized logo.
They will likely argue that the logo, at first glance, cannot be read as “ZOOM.”

**President Sumita:**
But our company name is Zoom Corporation, and customers who see our products read it as ZOOM.

**Attorney Soma:**
I agree.
Moreover, your website uses “ZOOM” as text, and the corporate name is written in katakana as “Kabushiki Gaisha Zoom.” Arguing that the logo in isolation is unreadable is detached from how the mark is actually used in commerce.

**President Sumita:**
Then please send the letter.

**Attorney Soma:**
Understood.
Though I should warn you — this case may not end with negotiation.

**President Sumita:**
That’s fine.
We have no intention of simply handing over this name.

—

## Scene 3 — Roberto Arrives in Japan

**Ono:**
Um… excuse me… are you Mr. Matsumoto?
Roberto Matsumoto, from headquarters?

**Roberto:**
That’s me.
Just call me Roberto.
I’m from the Legal and IP department at U.S. headquarters.

**Ono:**
I’m Ono, from the Japan subsidiary.
Nice to meet you.
I have to say… your Japanese is more natural than I expected…

**Roberto:**
What do you mean, “more than expected”?

**Ono:**
Oh — well — since you’re from headquarters, I was worried the meetings would be entirely in English…
I’ve been getting by mostly on… vibes.

**Roberto:**
You have not been getting by on vibes. You okay, man?

**Ono:**
Sorry. But — you speak really casually, don’t you.
I was a little relieved when the first thing out of your mouth was so… relaxed.

**Roberto:**
I’m second-generation Japanese-American. I lived in Japan for a long time as a kid.
It just stuck.

**Ono:**
Oh, thank goodness.
I was so nervous, I thought someone from the heart of American corporate culture was going to march in…

**Roberto:**
What does that even mean? I’m still very much from headquarters.

**Ono:**
Oh — right. Here’s the cease-and-desist letter, by the way.
The other party is Zoom Corporation, an audio equipment manufacturer.
They hold a prior trademark registration for ZOOM in Japan.

**Roberto:**
I know.
But right now, worldwide, when people say “Zoom,” they mean us.
We can’t afford to be stopped in Japan.

**Ono:**
They do have the trademark rights, but… do you think we can win?

**Roberto:**
First things first — negotiations.
Can you actually read their logo as ZOOM at a glance?
That’s where we start chipping away.

**Ono:**
I see! That’s reassuring!

—

## Scene 4 — Negotiations

**Attorney Soma:**
Thank you for making time for us today.
I represent Zoom Corporation, the plaintiff, and I’m here to discuss your use of the “Zoom” mark.

**Roberto:**
Likewise.
But let me say upfront — worldwide, when people say “Zoom,” they mean our service.

**President Sumita:**
That is not a justification for ignoring our trademark.

**Roberto:**
We’re not ignoring it.
But your registered trademark — it’s a logo, right?
The real question is whether someone can look at it and immediately read it as ZOOM.

**Attorney Soma:**
They can. The component letters are Z-O-O-M.

**Roberto:**
That’s exactly what we’re disputing.
The two middle letters in particular — the O’s are connected, they look almost like an infinity symbol. Or an hourglass turned on its side.
It’s quite different from a standard ZOOM in ordinary typeface.

**President Sumita:**
We’ve been manufacturing products under that logo for decades.
Our customers read it as ZOOM.

**Roberto:**
Some people might, sure.
But whether the general public reads it as ZOOM at first glance — that’s a different question.

**Attorney Soma:**
Your argument ignores actual commercial practice.
My client uses the word “ZOOM” in text on their website.
The company name itself is “Zoom Corporation.”
Viewing the logo in isolation, stripped of all context, runs counter to established precedent.

**Roberto:**
Fair enough on the logo point — let’s set that aside for a moment.
But the nature of your businesses is completely different, isn’t it?
You make audio hardware. We provide a communications service — video conferencing.

**President Sumita:**
Different businesses or not, we are receiving real inquiries.
And there’s something else I’m even more worried about.

**Roberto:**
What’s that?

**President Sumita:**
Your video conferencing service has a recording function, doesn’t it?
Audio from meetings gets saved.
Sound quality gets compared.
If people start saying “Zoom’s audio is bad” — they might think it’s our products that have bad audio.

**Roberto:**
You’re saying our audio quality is bad?
That’s a bit much, don’t you think?

**President Sumita:**
It’s a hypothetical.
We have spent decades working to improve sound quality.
With every product, we listened to our users and built something that works in the field.
That reputation could be damaged by the perception of another service.

**Attorney Soma:**
Roberto, you mentioned different business areas —
but my client’s registered trademark, in terms of the scope of rights, covers software for computers, which includes your video conferencing software. The registration documents list “computer programs,” don’t they?

**Roberto:**
But the actual business activities are totally different, aren’t they?
If you’re just going by paperwork and not reality, then it’s whoever files first wins, isn’t it?
That’s unheard of in the States.

**Attorney Soma:**
In Japan, that is generally how the system works.

**Roberto:**
Ah yes — the land of form over substance.

**President Sumita:**
Now, you listen here—!

**Attorney Soma:**
If a negotiated resolution proves difficult, we will consider litigation.

**Roberto:**
Go right ahead.
We’ll see you in court.

—

## Scene 5 — The Counterattack After Filing — 7 Non-Use Cancellation Actions

**Ono:**
R-Roberto! The complaint has arrived!

**Roberto:**
Here we go.
Alright — time to move.

**Ono:**
What are we going to do?

**Roberto:**
First, we keep pushing the argument that the logo can’t be read as ZOOM.
And at the same time, we file non-use cancellation petitions against Zoom Corporation’s trademarks.

**Ono:**
Non-use cancellations? But they’ve been using ZOOM for years…

**Roberto:**
Non-use is assessed on a product-by-product basis.
What’s at issue here is things like “computer programs.” If they haven’t been using the mark for software, we can get those canceled.

**Ono:**
I see — so we’re trimming their rights.

**Roberto:**
Exactly. They argued that, in terms of rights, their trademark covers our services.
So we go and align those rights with the actual reality.

**Ono:**
So then the goods become dissimilar?

**Roberto:**
You got it.
And we’re filing seven cancellation petitions.

**Ono:**
Seven?!

**Roberto:**
There are problem categories beyond just “programs.”
We’re going after every registration they hold that they probably aren’t actually using — like “programs for video conferencing.”
In a cancellation proceeding, if even one product is shown to be in use, it fails.
So we split the petitions — seven separate filings, one per product category.

**Ono:**
How did you even think of that? You’ve been in America this whole time.

**Roberto:**
Don’t underestimate me.
I passed the Japanese patent attorney exam, you know.

**Ono:**
What?! But you were only a kid when you lived in Japan…
You don’t mean—?!

**Roberto:**
The one and only. Youngest ever to pass, at thirteen. Made the news.

**Ono:**
Oh — I wasn’t born yet, so I wouldn’t know if it made the news…

**Roberto:**
Don’t flex your youth at me.

**Ono:**
Sorry! But you’re a legend in the IP world. People still talk about it.

**Roberto:**
Of course they do. The record still hasn’t been broken.
And I’ve been doing Japanese trademark work at headquarters ever since.

**Ono:**
I’m starting to feel like we can sweep this!
　
**Roberto:**
What did you think before now?
Anyway — honestly, even lawyers don’t always know the fine details of non-use cancellation practice. Which product categories to target can make or break the case.
That’s where a patent attorney earns their keep.

**Ono:**
I feel so much better!

**Roberto:**
So — we’re filing seven non-use cancellation petitions.
The proceedings at the JPO will take time, though.
So for a while, the litigation itself will focus mainly on the logo argument.

—

## Scene 6 — The Hearing — Is the Logo “ZOOM”?

**Judge:**
Let us now address the question of how the plaintiff’s trademark is perceived.
The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s trademark is not recognized as “ZOOM.” Is that correct?

**Roberto:**
Yes.
The plaintiff’s logo is so heavily stylized that the question is whether someone can read it as ZOOM at first glance.
That’s the core issue.

**Attorney Soma:**
Logo designs today are increasingly diverse, and even a high degree of stylization does not prevent consumers from reading it as text.
Furthermore, based on the plaintiff’s actual commercial use — their website, for instance — consumers encounter the word “zoom” in text before they even make a purchase. Once they do, they will naturally connect the logo with “zoom.”

**Roberto:**
But here’s the thing — long before the plaintiff’s logo existed, Tombow Pencil had a registered trademark for “ZOOM” in standard lettering, didn’t they?

**President Sumita:**
What…? That can’t be…

**Roberto:**
The plaintiff’s logo mark was registered while Tombow’s standard-lettering ZOOM trademark already existed.
That fact alone suggests the plaintiff’s logo was not simply read as “ZOOM” by the public.

**Attorney Soma:**
What if it was read as ZOOM, and it was registered by mistake?

**Roberto:**
Counselor, are you serious? You’re arguing your own client’s trademark is invalid?

**Attorney Soma:**
Even if it were registered in error, more than five years have passed since registration.
The exclusion period has lapsed. It can no longer be challenged as invalid.
That is what I am saying.

**Judge:**
The positions of both parties are understood.
Please submit additional arguments and evidence in writing before the next hearing.

**Roberto:**
*(quietly)*
…Interesting.

**Ono:**
Roberto?

*(The courtroom door closes.)*

**Roberto:**
Ono.
Get me everything on Tombow Pencil.

**Ono:**
Everything… on Tombow?

**Roberto:**
All materials related to their ZOOM trademark.
And set up a meeting.

**Ono:**
A meeting? With whom?

**Roberto:**
Tombow Pencil’s IP department — who else?
If we can acquire the trademark rights directly, we’re covered.

**Ono:**
Now? You want to do this now?

**Roberto:**
Now.
The trial isn’t over yet.

—

## Scene 7 — The Next Hearing — The Transfer Card

**Judge:**
The defendant has indicated new evidence and arguments. Please proceed.

**Roberto:**
Yes.
The defendant has acquired, by transfer, the ZOOM trademark previously held by Tombow Pencil.
Accordingly, our company is now the registered trademark owner of ZOOM.
Our use of the mark is therefore legitimate as use of a registered trademark.

**President Sumita:**
…What?! You can’t be serious!

**Attorney Soma:**
You cannot use a trademark acquired during pending litigation to justify the very conduct at issue.

**Roberto:**
There’s no law that says that. In fact, the Trademark Act expressly contemplates the free transfer of trademark rights.

**Attorney Soma:**
But an acquisition made solely to gain an advantage in ongoing litigation contradicts the purpose of the trademark transfer system. It is an abuse of rights.

**Roberto:**
Then please clearly articulate what that “purpose” is, and provide the legal basis for finding abuse of rights.

**President Sumita:**
Isn’t this just… cheating?

**Roberto:**
Emotional arguments don’t make something illegal.

**Judge:**
Very well. Both parties shall submit the required documents before the next hearing.
The defendant will provide evidence of the transfer. The plaintiff will set out the basis for their claim of abuse of rights.

—

## Scene 8 — After the Hearing — Soma’s Preemptive Strike

**President Sumita:**
Attorney Soma… they got us.
Going so far as to acquire the Tombow trademark — I didn’t see that coming.

**Attorney Soma:**
Yes. Though we haven’t been entirely caught off guard.

**President Sumita:**
What do you mean?

**Attorney Soma:**
In fact, we had already filed a non-use cancellation petition against Tombow Pencil’s ZOOM trademark.

**President Sumita:**
Already?

**Attorney Soma:**
Yes.
From the moment you first consulted with me, I identified that an older trademark — one closer to the plain word ZOOM — was still on the books.
I filed the non-use cancellation in advance, just in case something like this happened.

**President Sumita:**
Attorney Soma…! Thank you.

**Attorney Soma:**
Of course, the fact of the transfer itself cannot be ignored.
But if that trademark was not in use for the designated goods, their defense will fall apart.

**President Sumita:**
Honestly, their approach — going out and acquiring Tombow’s trademark — makes me angry.
If we can neutralize that, I trust a fair judgment will follow.

—

## Scene 9 — Documents Arrive — Tombow Trademark Cancelled

**Attorney Soma:**
President Sumita, we’ve received the decision from the Japan Patent Office.

**President Sumita:**
The result?

**Attorney Soma:**
We won.
The non-use cancellation of the ZOOM trademark that Roberto and his team acquired from Tombow has been granted.

**President Sumita:**
…Is that so.
Thank goodness.

**Attorney Soma:**
The evidence of use they submitted related to a multifunction pen with a touch stylus.
However, the JPO did not accept that as use in connection with computers.

**President Sumita:**
Of course not.
Just because a pen has a touch stylus doesn’t make it a calculator.

**Attorney Soma:**
Actually, “computers” under trademark law means computers in the modern sense — not calculators. So a touch stylus is a peripheral device for computers, which made this a very close call.

**President Sumita:**
I see…!
By the way — this cancellation proceeding is separate from the main litigation, isn’t it?
I wish they could all be handled together.
I have to admit, I wasn’t fully keeping track of it.

**Attorney Soma:**
I found it difficult to handle on my own as well, so I co-represented with a patent attorney colleague.
The case was contested all the way to the Intellectual Property High Court — and we prevailed.

**President Sumita:**
…Thank goodness.

**Attorney Soma:**
The IP High Court paid particular attention to the circumstances under which Tombow’s ZOOM trademark was originally registered.
About thirty years ago, that trademark had received an office action — a refusal — on the grounds that “ZOOM,” as a word describing a zoom or enlargement function, lacked distinctiveness for certain goods.

**President Sumita:**
“ZOOM” just describes a zoom feature, so it’s not a proper trademark — that sort of argument.

**Attorney Soma:**
Exactly.
To overcome that refusal, Tombow had amended the application to exclude external peripheral devices for computers — and registration was granted on that basis.
So the use of a touch stylus did not count as use in connection with “computers,” and the mark was found to be non-used.

**President Sumita:**
…Honestly, I’m not sure I’ve followed all of that.
But I understand that you fought with everything you had — and that the trademark was cancelled as a result. I’m deeply grateful.

**Attorney Soma:**
The trademark we need to protect is still standing.
And the other side will now turn to attacking your trademark registrations directly.

**President Sumita:**
The seven non-use cancellations.

**Attorney Soma:**
Yes. Two of them are not critical.
We’ll focus on the five that matter — and fight to defend those.

—

## Scene 10 — The 7 Non-Use Cancellations — Roberto Under Pressure

**Ono:**
Roberto.
We’ve received the judgment from the IP High Court.

**Roberto:**
…The seven cancellations?

**Ono:**
Yes.
Two of them — the ones we considered unimportant — the other side didn’t even submit evidence of use, so those are already cancelled.
The judgment covers the five we actually contested.

**Roberto:**
And the result?

**Ono:**
The JPO’s decisions — all upheld.
All five of our petitions were rejected.

**Roberto:**
…I see.

**Ono:**
They submitted evidence of an iPhone app.
The icon displayed “ZOOM.”
The court found that constituted use of the ZOOM trademark.

**Roberto:**
When they produced that evidence, I had a bad feeling.
But all five… that’s rough.

**Ono:**
The Tombow trademark we acquired was cancelled on non-use grounds, and we couldn’t overturn that at the IP High Court.
And now these five we filed ourselves — all gone too…

**Roberto:**
Don’t itemize it for me.
I’m already stressed.

**Ono:**
Even you get stressed?

**Roberto:**
What did you think I was?

**Ono:**
Second-generation Japanese-American. Casual speaker. Youngest person ever to pass the patent attorney exam.

**Roberto:**
I said don’t itemize.

**Ono:**
Sorry, sorry!
That was respect! Pure respect!
I just thought… you’d somehow flip this all around.

**Roberto:**
That’s not respect — that’s lazy expectations.
Look — we lost the non-use proceedings, but the main infringement case isn’t over.

**Ono:**
The next hearing will probably be the final arguments, and then the judgment.
What’s the plan?

**Roberto:**
…We argue the nature of our use head-on. Class 38 — communication services.

**Ono:**
Class 38 telecommunications services?

**Roberto:**
Right.
What we provide is not simply a software product under Class 9.
We connect users with each other and enable real-time audio-visual communication.
We use the name “Zoom” as a mark for a Class 38 communication service.

**Ono:**
But users download an app to use it, right?
Won’t Attorney Soma argue it’s software use?

**Roberto:**
That’s the whole battle.
Think about it — there’s almost no online service today that doesn’t involve software.
If everything delivered through an app automatically becomes Class 9 software, then online banking is software, Suica on your phone is software, email is software — everything falls into Class 9.

**Ono:**
My lunch order on Uber Eats would be Class 9 too!

**Roberto:**
We don’t need to classify your lunch order.
The point is: the means of delivery and the essential nature of the service are not the same thing.

**Ono:**
And on our side, we actually have a Zoom trademark registered under Class 38, don’t we?

**Roberto:**
Exactly.
In the U.S., we submitted actual screenshots of the Zoom website as evidence of use, and it was registered as a Class 38 communication service.
Based on that registration, we filed an international application — and it was registered in Japan under Class 38 as well.

**Ono:**
So even though Japan recognizes the Class 38 registration, treating our use as Class 9 software in the Japanese litigation is inconsistent?

**Roberto:**
That’s the argument.
The international classification is a global standard.
It makes no sense to treat the same service as a different product category in Japan alone.
We push hard on that.

**Ono:**
Though… Attorney Soma will probably come back with something like —
“The U.S. uses a use-based system, Japan uses a registration-based system, so the philosophy is different.”
“Even if the international classification is the same, how individual goods and services are interpreted varies by country.”
Won’t she say that?

**Roberto:**
…Yeah, she will.

**Ono:**
I knew it.

**Roberto:**
If the Class 38 argument alone becomes a back-and-forth, we need something more.

**Ono:**
Um…
If the injunction is granted, Zoom wouldn’t be able to use that name in Japan at all, right?

**Roberto:**
That’s right. What’s on your mind?

**Ono:**
Isn’t that… incredibly bad? If we have to change the name just in Japan now — reprinting everything, overhauling the website — that could cost more than any damages award.
And Zoom is so famous at this point. The cost of making a new name stick… I can’t even imagine…

**Roberto:**
…! What did you just say?

**Ono:**
I — I’m sorry, I’m just panicking out loud—

**Roberto:**
No. Ono — good catch.

**Ono:**
…Wait. Was I not about to get told off?

**Roberto:**
No.
You said “so famous.”
Zoom is so famous now that nobody gets confused anymore.

**Ono:**
…Pardon?

**Roberto:**
Even if there was a risk of confusion at some point in the past, things are completely different now.
Would anyone today, using Zoom for a video conference, think they were using a product from a Japanese audio equipment company called Zoom Corporation?

**Ono:**
…No. Probably not.

**Roberto:**
An injunction stops present and future conduct.
If there’s no current likelihood of confusion, a forward-looking injunction can’t be granted.
We combine that with the Class 38 argument and put it front and center.

**Ono:**
But… that’s the current situation. The past infringement doesn’t just disappear, does it?

**Roberto:**
Damages are for past conduct. In the worst case, if we can keep using the Zoom name by paying damages, that’s acceptable.

**Ono:**
You’re prepared to accept damages?

**Roberto:**
What we absolutely cannot accept is being ordered to stop using the name Zoom.
We can’t rebrand in Japan alone.

**Ono:**
I see.
…That’s brilliant.
You turned my despair into a legal argument.

**Roberto:**
I’ll let the attitude slide this time — because honestly, Ono, this one was thanks to you.

**Ono:**
I’m honored to have helped!
Um — Roberto?

**Roberto:**
What.

**Ono:**
“Youngest ever to pass the exam” — that’s really not just for show, is it?
Truly incredible~!

**Roberto:**
You are absolutely taking the mickey out of me, aren’t you.

—

## Scene 11 — Final Arguments — Class 38 and Past vs. Present

**Judge:**
Today’s session will be the final oral arguments.
We’ll begin with the defendant’s position.

**Roberto:**
The use in question is not use in connection with a Class 9 software product. It is use in connection with a Class 38 communication service — one that enables users to communicate with one another.
The class system is a globally harmonized international standard.
Our company submitted evidence of Zoom’s actual use in the United States and received registration as a Class 38 communication service.
Based on that registration, we filed an international application and obtained Class 38 registration in Japan as well.
In light of that, treating our use as Class 9 software in this proceeding is simply wrong.

**Attorney Soma:**
I do not dispute that the international classification provides a globally harmonized framework.
However, how individual goods and services are interpreted, and how trademark use is evaluated, differs by country, based on each country’s legal system and practice.

**Roberto:**
But our Class 38 registration was accepted in Japan too — based on our U.S. registration.

**Attorney Soma:**
The existence of a registration is a separate matter from whether infringement is established in relation to my client’s trademark in this case.
Moreover, the U.S. system is grounded in a use-based model.
The fact that a registration was granted based on evidence of use in the U.S. does not mean the same interpretation automatically applies under Japan’s registration-based system.

**Roberto:**
Then let’s talk substance.
If everything delivered through an app is automatically Class 9 software, then online banking is Class 9. Tapping through the turnstile with your phone’s Suica app is Class 9.

**Ono:**
And ordering Uber Eats is Class 9 too!

**Roberto:**
Ono — the first two examples were enough, it gets the point across.
I apologize.
The point is — if everything is Class 9, then the whole purpose of distinguishing between product and service categories becomes meaningless.

**Attorney Soma:**
I believe that analysis is case-by-case. The banking analogy is different in nature from the situation here. And frankly, there is genuine doubt as to whether the defendant’s service even qualifies as the kind of infrastructure-level communication service that Class 38 contemplates.

**Judge:**
Noted. I will rule on this point based on the arguments and evidence submitted by both parties.
Now — regarding the defendant’s argument based on the fame of their mark?

**Roberto:**
Even if there was a risk of confusion at some point in the past, circumstances have changed dramatically.
Zoom is now extraordinarily well known as a video conferencing service.
Today’s consumers are able to distinguish the defendant’s Zoom from the plaintiff’s ZOOM audio equipment.

**Attorney Soma:**
The defendant is seeking to escape liability for trademark infringement on the grounds that they have become famous.
But the fact that the defendant infringed my client’s trademark in the process of becoming famous does not disappear.

**Roberto:**
We do not deny that.
If the court finds that there was a problem in the past, that should be addressed through damages.
But an injunction is a mechanism to stop present and future conduct.
If there is no current likelihood of confusion, an injunction cannot be granted.

**President Sumita:**
That can’t be right…

**Attorney Soma:**
To acknowledge infringement while refusing to grant an injunction would hollow out the entire force of trademark rights. And frankly, such reasoning is unprecedented — this is entirely the defendant’s own invention.

**Roberto:**
It simply separates past liability from the prospective necessity of an injunction.
Therefore, it is theoretically coherent to say: past infringement is acknowledged, but a present injunction is not warranted.
And there are precedents where damages were awarded but an injunction was denied.

**Attorney Soma:**
Those involve special circumstances of non-use — they have no application here.
The defendant’s so-called “current consumer perception” is one they built by running roughshod over my client’s trademark rights.

**Judge:**
The positions of both parties are understood.
The matter will be decided in the judgment.

—

## Scene 12 — The Judgment

**Judge:**
The judgment is now delivered.
The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff damages in the amount of 166 million yen.
The claim for injunctive relief is dismissed.

**Ono:**
*(quietly)* The injunction… we avoided it…

**Roberto:**
Yes.

**Attorney Soma:**
That can’t be…

**President Sumita:**
Attorney Soma…

—

## Scene 13 — Defendant’s Side — After the Verdict

**Ono:**
Roberto — we avoided the injunction.

**Roberto:**
That’s the big one.
For the company, being stopped from using the service name would have been devastating.

**Ono:**
But infringement was still found.

**Roberto:**
This isn’t a clean win.
Past liability remains.

**Ono:**
And the plaintiff will almost certainly appeal.

**Roberto:**
They will.
But for now, our argument was accepted in principle. Not every argument, but the key one.
At the appellate stage, we’ll raise additional arguments too — and fight the damages figure as well.

**Ono:**
I guess trademark rights aren’t determined just by whether you have a registration or not.

**Roberto:**
Right.
How your rights are structured, and how the market actually perceives your mark — those things matter too.
So the best approach is to handle everything proactively, in advance.

**Ono:**
But headquarters did file the international application and get Japan rights secured… That’s more thorough than most companies.

**Roberto:**
And yet — look at how this played out.
We should have consulted local specialists in each country from the start.
That’s on us. Genuinely.

—

## Scene 14 — After the Verdict — Soma’s Explanation

**President Sumita:**
Attorney Soma — infringement was found?

**Attorney Soma:**
Yes.
The court found, at least for a certain period in the past, that our arguments were accepted.
Your trademark was recognized as being read as “ZOOM.”
The court also found similarity with the defendant’s “Zoom” mark, and similarity between the goods and services.

**President Sumita:**
Then why was the injunction denied?

**Attorney Soma:**
That’s where Roberto’s final argument was accepted.
The court found that Zoom for video conferencing has become so widely known that consumers can now distinguish your ZOOM from theirs.
In other words — past infringement occurred, but there is no current likelihood of confusion.
So: damages are awarded, but the injunction is denied.
That is the structure of this ruling.

**President Sumita:**
It’s frustrating.

**Attorney Soma:**
Yes. I find it deeply frustrating as well.

**President Sumita:**
We spent decades working on sound quality.
We listened to our users, built products that work in the field, and built the ZOOM name from the ground up.
And then a massive service comes along afterward, spreads that name across the globe, and now says — “we’re too famous for anyone to confuse us.”

**Attorney Soma:**
This is my own speculation, but —
the court may have also felt some reluctance to bring a global service to a halt.

**President Sumita:**
I can’t let go of what they did with the Tombow trademark either.
Going that far — acquiring it mid-litigation. I was shocked.
And yet, at the same time — I have to reflect on our own side too.
Earlier — before this dispute ever escalated — we should have done something about the plain word “ZOOM.”
We should have negotiated with Tombow, or made our own move earlier.

**Attorney Soma:**
You’re right. Securing the plain word trademark in advance, not just the logo, is critically important.
And important as it is — for a result like this to come from that oversight…

**President Sumita:**
Even so, Attorney Soma — despite how this turned out, I’m glad we went to trial.

**Attorney Soma:**
What do you mean?

**President Sumita:**
The litigation brought media attention. It continuously made clear to the public that we and the other party are different companies.
And the judgment was immediately covered by news sites — with headlines like “US Zoom Ordered to Pay 166 Million Yen for Trademark Infringement.”

**Attorney Soma:**
For readers, that makes it abundantly clear that the two companies are separate.

**President Sumita:**
Exactly. And some people won’t read beyond the headline. Others won’t fully grasp the details.
But in that sense, it meant something.
Still — I can’t say I’m satisfied.

**Attorney Soma:**
President Sumita — let’s appeal.

**President Sumita:**
Yes. Please — I’m counting on you.

—

## Scene 15 — Soma’s Narration

**Attorney Soma:**
The primary goal — securing an injunction — was not achieved. But the case carried real meaning for my client. For reminding me of that, I am grateful to them.

Litigation is, after all, one of the tools available when a dispute between parties has reached a dead end — a way to move things forward, toward resolution. It is not a game to be won or lost.

Thinking about the client’s interests — deciding when to file, when not to file, and sometimes, when to settle once litigation has begun — that is the work.

A counsel who never stops thinking about what serves their client best.
That is what I aspire to be.

*—The End —*