Tobita & Partners provides high quality legal advice and assistance to Japanese, foreign and foreign-based corporations and individuals.


The notification about commercial registration from the government has been published on the MOJ website( The notification said that you can establish a company in Japan and apply for registration even if all of the representative directors are non-residents.

In order to establish a company, at least one representative director had to be a resident of Japan and he/she had to have an address in Japan, so you had to first find a partner with a Japanese address and establish your company with them. However, from now on, that will become unnecessary.

This change is followed by making the registration rule stricter and non-residents are required to present certification issued by the authorities when they register their foreign address. However, if the company does something wrong and pulls its office out of Japan afterwards, it might be really difficult to file an action against that company and the representative directors. So, there is criticism to this change.

Nevertheless, this deregulation is necessary for attracting foreign investments. It might be impossible to make a system completely free from risks, so we have to do business with such a company in anticipation of such risks. I have high expectations for this change and I hope this will revitalize the economy in Japan.

Moreover, there is news that MOJ will change the rule of Visa (Ordinance for Enforcement of the Immigration Law) this April. So far, you can apply for the "Investor/Business Manager Visa" under the condition that your company has been established in Japan. Starting April, you will be able to apply for the four month Investor/Business Manager Visa if you can present some documents like "Articles of Incorporation" or "Business Plan" and receive a confirmation of Business Purpose. I have high expectations for this change too.

A Japanese man has applied for a provisional disposition order requesting Google to remove some search results based on the search results of his own name on Google; Google displayed so many search results which hinted at his commitment of a crime in the past.
The Tokyo District Court decided to order Google to remove such search results and Google removed them in accordance with the reception of this decision.

The man said that he has used the Europe's "right to be forgotten" ruling as a reference.
The referential case was as follows: A Spanish man requested Google to remove some search results and references to his negative past record, including the past arrears of social insurance premium. European Court of Justice regarded Google as a "Provider of contents" and admitted this man's request.
In the Japanese case above, the petitioner used the judgment by the European Court of Justice as a reference and insisted that search results are contents and should be treated the same as articles themselves, so Google, who is responsible for managing such contents, has an obligation to remove illegal search results.

These days, there are so many defamation incidents over the Internet, such as defamation on the message board online. 
Come to think of it however, we usually use a search engine, namely Google, when we want to search something, which allows us to access some websites and/or articles through its results. 
Therefore, if we can remove such retrieved results, it will become very difficult for us to access those defamatory articles, which results in the improvement of this harmful situation.

From my experience, I think that the number of requests for consultation relating to slander or defamation on the Internet has been increasing recently.
This case was an individual requesting the removal of search results due to the infringement of his moral right, but I think that it can possibly become a new problem whether or not companies can request the removals of search results due to the infringements of their business rights. 

According to a Nikkei newspaper article dated September 3, 2014, the Supreme Court will establish “Business Court” which specializes in litigation relating to business such as “intellectual property” or “bankruptcy” by the end of 2021.
Business Court will be fully equipped with video and audio apparatus so that we can hold a television meeting with a remote court or oral arguments can be conducted by using teleconference system.

Personally, I do not think that the present court system has sufficiently exhibited the function of conflict resolution relating to business (especially in the point of“speed”), so I hope Business Court will satisfy the parties to the dispute of business and become a revolutionary court.