模倣による損害

01:30 Mar 29, 2013 

As David and Harry explain, damages is acceptable. I just understand it. I just suggested 'damage' because I thought it includes both physical and financial damages. Is it OK to assume that damages has both meanings? In regards to 模倣　here, it must be 「不正な模倣」 even if 不正な doesn't appear here because this term is discribed in 警告状 ,and it gives warning to this act as an illegal one. But I think imitation also works here as Harry-san suggests. Thanks! it was a good learning experience. 　

21:28 Mar 28, 2013 

I wanted to say "damages" but inadvertently dropped “s.” I meant to refer commonly used English legal text "damages including, but not limited to, ..."

I do not think it is necessary for translator to speculate the types of damages/losses and to use specific word for it. 損害 in Japanese could include both physical damages and losses of something and so the translation shall be. If the text said 損失, I agree with David.

Further, 模倣 in Japanese does not necessary mean “fraudulent” or “illegal” thus I suggested “imitation.” As the source text suggested, everyone can perform the Home-brew test until the application of the utility model has been approved and registered. If the source text said 不正な模倣 I would use “counterfeiting.”

04:21 Mar 28, 2013 

I think this is probably not a case of damage to health caused by counterfeited drugs but financial damages/losses from non-payment of patent royalties. Personally, I would translate it in context along the lines of "losses incurred due to patent infringement", "damages arising from patent infringement", "damages arising from non-payment of patent royalties". In my opinion "damages" is perfectly acceptable though I would associate "damages" (plural) with a financial loss and "damage" (singular) with physical health in this context.

01:38 Mar 28, 2013 

I agree to 'incurred due to' sounding more natural in English whereas 'damage caused' is too direct a translation and seems to mostly be used in translations from other languages. What term would a native English speaking lawyer use? It should be clarified if it is damage (to health) or damages/losses (financial) as Mami stated. There is no room for doubt in a legal contract and if the source is in any way vague it should be referred back to the client for clarification.