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 heard 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.

October 1, 2003
International Karate Organization Kyokushinkaikan
All Japan Kyokushin Union
Director General of the Board Kazuyuki Hasegawa

---

By Solicitor Seiwa Tanaka

1.	On April 26, 1994 Kancho Masutatsu Oyama, Sosai deceased.
2.	On May 9, 1994 Solicitor Seiwa Tanaka demanded to look into the matter of the Emergency Will with the Tokyo Family Affairs Court against Solicitor Yonezu, as per request of the family of Sosai Masutatsu Oyama, who insisted they were having evidence that the Will was a forgery. On March 31, 1995 the Tokyo Family Affairs Court declared that the Will was invalid. Solicitor Yonezu objected to his decision and went into appeal. On October 16, 1996 the Tokyo High Court rejected the appeal. Again Solicitor Yonezu objected to the decision and went into special appeal. On March 17, 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the special appeal, concluding that the Will was invalid.
3.	On July 11, 1997 Mr. Shokei Matsui acquired the rights of the Kyokushinkaikan marks. Mr. Matsui had applied for the registration on May 18, 1994. The Patent Bureau had once refused his application, but after Mr. Yoshiaki Umeda provided him with some documents after three years he received the authorization. Because of this he began forbidding the use of the Kyokushin marks to the other groups.
4.	On August 31, 2000, three persons Mr. Okada, Mr. Hasegawa and Mr. Seto brought a Provisional Disposition to the Osaka Regional Court against Mr. Matsui because of his hindering of the use of the marks. Mr. Matsui opposed to these three persons bringing in a Provisional Disposition claiming his right hindering them of the use of the marks. This Court ruled in the same year on December 28, as Mr. Matsui is the leader of only one group it is an abuse of privileges to say that he has the monopoly of the rights of the marks,therefore the claim of Mr. Okada, Mr. Hasegawa and Mr. Seto was recognized and the claim of Mr. Matsui was rejected. Even if Mr. Matsui objected to this decision, the same Court rejected this appeal on April 4, 2001. Mr. Matsui dissatisfied with this decision went into appeal with the Osaka High Court. The Osaka High Court dismissed this appeal the same year on October 2.
5.	On March 19, 2001 7 persons, Mr. Oishi, Mr. Takahashi, Mr. Miwa, Mr. Tabata, Mr. Shichinohe, Mr. Sakamoto and Mr. Kuwajima brought a Provisional Disposition to the Tokyo Regional Court against Mr. Matsui because of his hindering of the use of the marks. The same year on October 23 5 persons, Mr. Oishi, Mr. Takahashi, Mr. Tabata, Mr. Shichinohe and Mr. Kuwajima had an amicable settlement with Mr. Matsui, it was compelled that these 5 persons were recognized to have the use of the marks, but with a proviso. Mr. Miwa and Mr. Sakamoto continued the lawsuit separately, the same year on December 20 the Tokyo Regional Court turned them down their case for the reason that it was unjust as they were sub-Branch Chiefs.
6.	The Kyokushinkaikan - All Japan Kyokushin Union was formed in December 2001, it took concrete shape through the reoccurring confrontation in court with Mr. Matsui. It started in real earnest activities to obtain a unified group of Kyokushinkaikan, guarding the Kyokushin legacy and the Kyokushin spirit.
7.	On February 5, 2002 10 persons Mr. Okada, Mr. Hasegawa, Mr. Seto, Mr. Miwa, Mr. Sakamoto, Mr. Oishi, Mr. Takahashi, Mr. Tabata, Mr. Shichinohe and Mr. Kuwajima instituted a suit with the Osaka Regional Court against Mr. Matsui asking for " the confirmation that his claim to prohibit the use of the marks is nonexistent". Because of the problem of the interpretation of the before mentioned "amicable settlement" Mr. Oishi and the following 5 persons' case was transferred to the Tokyo Regional Court. But following one another the court rulings came out, on September 29, 2003 the Tokyo Regional Court and on Sepbember 30, 2003 the Osaka Regional Court decided in favor of all the plaintiffs on the entire claim. Mr. Matsui concluded not to go in appeal against the decision of the Tokyo Regional Court. Mr. Matsui was dissatisfied with the decision of the Osaka Regional Court and went into appeal, but on September 29, 2004 the Osaka High Court rejected it. Mr. Matsui still dissatisfied with this decision went into appeal to the Supreme Court.
8.	On August 24 2004 Mr. Okada and another 80 persons filed in a suit with the Osaka Regional Court against Mr. Matsui "he cannot use the title of Kancho of the whole Kyokushinkaikan".
9.	Principal ideas a) Here above are 11 decisions of the court stated. Amongst which 9 decisions were in our favor, 1 amicable settlement tending in our favor and 1 lost case. I believe that our driving force lies in the fact that Justice is with us. b) As it is a fact that the original Kyokushinkaikan is nowadays a split organization, we have to guard Sosai Oyama's Kyokushin legacy and spirit so that it stays alive, we have to use all our power to gather in a union. c) Another opinion : seen from the democratic theory a removal would be only logic. It is important that we all come together in an organization like a union against Mr. Matsui so that he doesn't have the monopoly, it is important, it will magnify the strength of the Union organization.