On September 30, and October 1, 2003, there were some articles in various national Japanese newspapers and regional newspapers with head titles such as "Prohibition of use of marks, Kyokushin Karate' Kancho' loses lawsuit ", "Kyokushinkaikan, Successor not concluded", "Judgment passed use of Kyokushin's name authorized to disciples", etc.
These are the publications announcing the court ruled altogether in our favor against Mr Shokei Matsui who appointed himself as Kancho of the Kyokushinkaikan, and secretly acquired the Kyokushin's names and marks and who told us not to obstruct him in using the Kyokushin's names and marks.
A lawsuit was filed with the Tokyo District Court, plaintiffs Mr Daigo Oishi, Mr Yasuo Takahashi, Mr Shigeru Tabata, Mr Yasuhiro Shichinohe and Mr Yasuhiro Kuwajima, 5 Shihans from our side and with the Osaka District Court, plaintiffs Mr Yukio Okada, Mr Kazuyuki Hasegawa, Mr Riichi Setto, Mr Jun Miwa and Mr Shigenori Sakamoto, another 5 Shihans from our side. So, we had 2 independant lawsuits going on at the same time, of which by coincidence the judgment came one after the other.
The court ruled against Mr Matsui, at any rate we can run our dojo under Kyokushinkaikan, put advertisements, hold Kyokushin tournaments freely having the rights to use the Kyokushin's names, marks and logo, etc.
At the same time the court declared that it is illegal to obstruct us using the Kyokushin's names and marks and ordered the defendant pay a compensation fee of totalling Yen 4.6million for the losses that we suffered.
The three main points of the judgment are as follows :
1) Mr Matsui claims that there was a Will of the founder of Kyokushinkaikan, Sosai Masutatsu Oyama getting him the position of the successor-kancho.
But Sosai Masutatsu Oyama's family filed a protest against the Will, as they suspected it to be a forgery. First the Tokyo Family Affairs Court, next the Tokyo High Court and last the Supreme Court ruled that "It cannot be recognized that this Will originates from the real intention of Sosai Oyama".
Taking this into account, Mr Matsui declared himself as successor / At that time Mr Matsui lost the authority to claim being the successor of Sosai Masutatsu Oyama, Kyokushinkaikan.
Also third persons who claim to have heahttp://www.kyokushin-rengokai.com/english/saiban_e.htmlhttp://www.kyokushin-rengokai.com/english/saiban_e.htmlrd directly from Sosai Masutatsu Oyama that he wanted
Mr Matsui to be his successor, such verbal evidences miss credibility and cannot be approved.
2) The Kyokushinkaikan such as it was under Sosai Masutatsu Oyama split in several groups after he passed away, because of several influences.
Mr Matsui declared himself Kancho of the whole Kyokushinkaikan. But Mr Matsui is the representative of one group.
Mr Matsui claimed that the groups that separated themselves from the Matsui-group were no longer Kyokushin. But Kyokushinkaikan is not only the Matsui-group, the court clarified claiming otherwise is erroneous.
3) Sosai Oyama who was leading "Kyokushinkaikan", was the symbol of it. It is known that he spread Kyokushin and made it well-known.
He was successful in doing so because he could count on the cooperation of the members of his organization, such as Branch Chiefs and sub-Branch Chiefs, who for long years ran dojo and held tournaments under the name of Kyokushinkaikan.
When Sosai Masutatsu Oyama was still with us he granted the use of the Kyokushin's names and marks to his Branch Chiefs and sub-Branch Chiefs as a matter of course.
As the circumstances were as such, and Mr Matsui not being Sosai Masutatsu Oyama's successor, being no more than just the representative of one group he does not have the right to prohibit other Kyokushin Branch Chiefs and sub-Branch Chiefs the use of the Kyokushin's names and marks, even if he has registered them.
If he prevents the use of Kyokushin's names and marks, he abuses his privileges, and if by doing so he causes losses, he has to pay compensation as it is illegal.
Both the judgments of the Tokyo District Court and the Osaka District Court have endorsed our overall claim up to now. After Sosai Masutatsu Oyama passed away there was a big confusion in the Kyokushin Karate World, that kept going on.
We think the future of the Kyokushin Karate World is without divergence brighter from now on
as the contents of this judgment are : "Mr Matsui has no authority to be Kyokushinkaikan Kancho
and Mr Shokei Matsui does not have the monopoly of the use of names and marks related to Kyokushin Karate."
We, the 10 plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit, have started up the All Japan Kyokushin Union in December 2001 in order to spread and develop in the right way Kyokushin Karate as it was transmitted by the founder Sosai Masutatsu Oyama. No matter in how many groups the Kyokushin Karate World is split, we want to overcome the borders of the groups and unite in "Kyokushin".
We hope that the result of this lawsuit will bring us one step closer to getting together the Kyokushin Karate World.
