"...In principle, if it is determined that a party who requested a preliminary injunction was not right, the other party or third person may demand compensation for damages arising from the preliminary injunction from the party who requested the preliminary action in a separate compensation action. For the party who requested the preliminary injunction to be liable for the damages arising therefrom, it is not imperative that the party requested the preliminary injunction in bad faith or negligently. If the preliminary injunction is unjust and damage results, the party who applied for this injunction is liable for compensating the other party or a third person even if the applicant was not at fault as the material compensation responsibility arising from unfair preliminary injunctions is absolute.
In the subject case, the preliminary injunction decision in the infringement action instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff has undoubtedly been applied, the action became moot since the defendant's registrations were canceled, and the preliminary injunction was removed. Therefore, the ruling was inaccurate because the court did not consider the plaintiff's damage because he could not manufacture and sell those products while the preliminary injunction was in force; it does not matter whether the defendant was at fault in obtaining the preliminary injunction decision." (11th Unit of Court of Appeal, 2008/4415, 2008/6680, D. 21.05.2008)
For the rest of the decision and for more information, please contact us at email@example.com