A landmark trademark ruling was handed down by the Tokyo District Court on April 24, 2026, ordering Zoom Communications Inc. to pay approximately JPY 166 million in monetary awards while completely dismissing the request for a service injunction.
[Court case no. Reiwa3(wa)30190, decided on April 24, 2026]
Plaintiff
Zoom Corporation, a Japanese company developing and selling electronic musical instruments and audio/video equipment, has held TM Registration No. 4940899 for the stylized mark “ZOOM” under Class 9 for “computer programs” since 2006.
Defendant
Zoom Communications, Inc., a U.S. corporation, established in 2011, has been providing the “Zoom” web conferencing service globally, including in Japan, since 2012. By 2019, the service had hosted over 8 million web conferences for more than 400,000 users across Japan.
In 2020, as COVID-19 spread and the government declared a state of emergency, the adoption of remote work skyrocketed among Japanese companies. This triggered explosive growth in the use of web conferencing systems. Japan’s overall utilization rate jumped from 44% at the end of December 2019 to 63% by the end of April 2020. During this surge, Zoom’s market share captured 35% in May 2020 and further expanded to a dominant 61% by October 2021.
Tokyo District Court decision
1. Are Free Downloadable Apps Considered “Goods”?
The Defendant argued that its free downloadable software did not constitute “goods” under the Japan Trademark Law. However, the Court rejected this, ruling that even if software is provided free of charge, it offers independent utility and commercial value to users. Thus, it is evaludated s “goods (computer programs)” under Class 9, and its distribution constitutes trademark usage.
2. The “Cut-off” Date for Confusion
The most unique aspect of this ruling is how the Court established a strict temporal boundary for “likelihood of confusion” based on shifting market realities:
- Up to June 2020: There was a legitimate likelihood of confusion among general consumers regarding the source of the software, establishing trademark infringement.
- From July 2020 Onward: Driven by the explosive adoption of remote work during the pandemic, the Defendant’s “Zoom” service achieved an overwhelming 74.7% recognition rate in Japan. Because the “ZOOM” mark became universally famous as the Defendant’s specific service, the Court ruled that the likelihood of confusion had entirely ceased to exist.
3. Injunction Standards: Why the App Stayed Online
Under Japanese law, a claim for an injunction is evaluated based on the market conditions at the close of oral arguments (January 19, 2026). Because the Defendant’s mark had already become too famous for consumers to confuse it with the Plaintiff’s goods or services by this date, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s request for an injunction order.
4. Calculation of Monetary Award (Unjust Enrichment)
The Court found the Defendant liable for infringement on the Plaintiff’s trademark rights from February 1, 2016, to June 30, 2020 (the period before the Defendant’s ZOOM mark became famous). While the Plaintiff’s tort-based damages claim for the period prior to October 18, 2019, had expired due to the 3-year statute of limitations, the claim for the return of unjust enrichment (based on a reasonable licensing fee) was still valid. Utilizing a standard licensing fee model, the Court awarded JPY 166,219,358 based on the Defendant’s historical revenues in Japan.