Case fileReal
Illustrator v. Sanrio (Kero Kero Keroppi)
An artist accused Sanrio of copying his cartoon frog to make Keroppi. The courts said drawing a frog like a person is an idea, not protected expression.
An illustrator (individual),
Plaintiff,
v.
Sanrio Company, Ltd.,
Defendant.
Docket No.Tokyo District Court, Heisei 12 (ワ) No. 4632
CourtTokyo District Court; affirmed by the Tokyo High Court
Filed2000
StatusDecided
The record
- Court
- Tokyo District Court; affirmed by the Tokyo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Japan
- Docket No.
- Tokyo District Court, Heisei 12 (ワ) No. 4632
- Filed
- 2000
- Resolved
- 2001
- Sanrio’s role
- Defendant
- Type
- Copyright
- Claims
- Copyright infringement — alleged copying of an anthropomorphized-frog artwork
- Counsel — plaintiff/petitioner
- not public
- Counsel — Sanrio side
- not public
What happened
An artist accused Sanrio of copying his cartoon frog to make Keroppi. The courts said drawing a frog like a person is an idea, not protected expression.
Outcome
Claim dismissed (first instance 29 Aug 2000; appeal 23 Jan 2001). Anthropomorphizing a frog was held an unprotectable idea and the designs differed materially. Sanrio won.
The legal nuance
The idea/expression line, the same principle at the heart of the Cathy and Kuromi disputes, decided here in Sanrio’s favor.
Sources of record