A legal review of the Nishimura–Watkins feud

Or, everything you wanted to know about why Mommy and Daddy are fighting, and many things you didn’t

The cases I know about

Watkins variously uses the names James Arthur Watkins, Jim Watkins, N. T. Technology, LLC, and Race Queen Inc. (A Philippine corporation.) Nishimura goes under Hiroyuki Nishimura, Tokyo Plus KK, “A” (something like “John Doe”, but we know it’s him because he admitted it on his website), and Packet Monster Pte Ltd.

1. In re: Race Queen Inc. (“A” v. Race Queen Inc.), 平成29年(ワ)第3428号 (Heisei 29 №2428) (Tokyo District Court 2019 December 24). Text
2. In re trademark registration T5843569, 無効2017–890013 (Invalidity case 2017–890013) (Japan Patent Office 26 July 2019).
3. Tokyo Plus KK v. N.T. Technology, Inc., 令和元年(オ)第１１４０号 (Reiwa 1 №1140) (Supreme Court of Japan 21 November 2019). Text
4. Hiroyuki Nishimura v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0111730701 / Jim Watkins, Race Queen, Inc, Case № D2016–1025 (WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 28 July 2016).

The Japanese court system is impenetrable. I reached out to two subject matter experts; I will not mention their names, but say, they both write for well-respected Japanese newspapers, and are both native Japanese speakers. Even they find the system impenetrable, but they helped me get this far.

The biggest open questions are: who has won what, and what can Nishimura do to get the 2ch.net domain back?

Nishimura’s claims

• Watkins stole 2channel
• He owns 2channel’s trademark, therefore he ought to own 2ch.net
• He paid Watkins on time

Watkins’ claims

• The repossession was just, proper, and legal
• The Japanese trademark doesn’t matter, 2channel pre-existed it
• Even arguendo that the trademark matters, the case is moot and academic because a trademark is not a domain and he now operates the site under the name 5channel, which his son is the registrant of and has given him the legal right to use
• The repossession was primarily carried out due to unpaid bills

Who has won what?

It is basically impossible to say that anyone has won here but Nishimura and Watkins’ lawyers have won lots of fees. Watkins says he’s won in the Supreme Court and it’s all over, Nishimura says he won in the Tokyo District Court. Both claims have some evidence behind them.

• Case №1, Heisei 29 №2428, is most legally important, as well as important to the future. It’s been going on the longest, the order I link is from 2019 but it’s been in process since Heisei 29 (2017). Notice that the ruling I link, which to my knowledge is the latest ruling in the case, by Judge Yoshiaki Shibata, was ruled on after the ruling in Reiwa 1 №1140. If it truly has been overturned by the Supreme Court of Japan, why are further rulings still happening?
• Case №2, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) case, was the cause of action for Case №1. (I link to an appeal and not the original ruling, thus the date mixup.) That is to say, with the JPO ruling on the matter, Nishimura could start a court case.
• Case №3, Reiwa 1 №1140, is the most confusing case. Notice how the source is self-published: I can’t find any mention of this case anywhere online, except Japanese Wikipedia and forums. Let me just say, both Hiroyuki and Watkins have obfuscated information, both have told outright lies, it’s so hard to trust either of them. Is this document even real? If real, what does it really mean? My sources told me that to the best of their understanding, it’s an entirely separate action from Case №1. So, Nishimura brought two cases: one against Race Queen Inc. and one against N.T. Technology Inc., for different reasons. My sources cautioned that because we don’t have the lower court’s ruling, we really can’t say anything from this document. It could simply have been rejected by the Supreme Court because of jurisdiction: a foreign corporation is being sued, and they felt it didn’t rise to the level. It also, though, could be a consolidated petition, and a ruling on Case №1 as well. But, because Case №1 had a ruling after, that seems unlikely.
• Case №4 is the most practically important. The WIPO would have had the ability to resolve this matter quickly by declaring the domain stolen, but they decided that they didn’t have jurisdiction and punted to the courts. Now, the only way that Nishimura can get the domain is through a federal court order. See this interesting pleading by attorneys for ICANN in Netsphere, Inc., et al. v. Jeffrey Baron and Ondova Ltd. which explains in great detail the relationship and authority federal courts have over WIPO, ICANN, et cetera.

What’s going to happen?

Most likely, nothing. Unlikely, if Nishimura gets a finally executory order in Case №1, and Case №3 is truly not an impediment to him and was rejected for some other reason, and despite the move to 5ch.net he wants to keep fighting this battle, he can sue Watkins and N.T. Technology, Inc. in US federal court, and ask the judge to enforce his foreign court order via the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act. Now, question, is the domain a money judgment? Even if not, it still might be possible under the common law, see this treatment of the matter by the International Comparative Legal Guide.

However, exceptions apply, including one to me personally: the SPEECH Act. Any cyberlibel judgment found against me is unenforcable in the United States, where I now live. Does a similar exception exist in this case? We can’t say because there’s no order yet.

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.