Zuykov and partners

An article by Anastasia Omelchenko, a lawyer at Zuykov and partners, has been published in the new issue of The Trademark Lawyer Magazine. The probability of mixing a trademark and a disputed designation is determined based on the degree of similarity of the designations and the degree of uniformity of the goods for the specified persons. The court establishes similarity based on the results of comparing a trademark and a designation (including by graphic, sound, and semantic criteria), taking into account the evidence presented by the parties according to their inner conviction. At the same time, the court takes into account which elements have similarities – the strong or weak elements of the trademark and designation. But how do you determine which elements of a trademark are strong and which are weak? In this article, this issue is considered from the point of view of current judicial practice. Read the issue here: https://lnkd.in/dmQq9Dgn #law #ip #trademark

Civil legislation identifies several ways to protect a violated right. By the provisions of Article 1252 of the Civil Code, one way to protect exclusive rights to the results of intellectual activity and means of individualization is to publish a court decision on the violation, indicating the actual copyright holder. This method of protecting the right cannot be called unpopular. It is often aimed at restoring a damaged business reputation and is used by plaintiffs to publish decisions on defendants' websites, which somehow defamed the honor and dignity of the plaintiff, for example, when selling counterfeit goods. An analysis of judicial practice in intellectual property rights violation cases shows that plaintiffs often assert this claim in conjunction with a claim for compensation or other material claims. However, satisfaction of the stated requirement occurs less frequently, and therefore, it is proposed to consider the reasons for refusing to satisfy such a requirement, as well as this institution as a whole. For more information, see the article by associate lawyer Ekaterina Gorbunova. #ip #law #court #russia https://lnkd.in/dd7G4yX9

Rospatent received an objection from Vladimir Standard LLC against granting legal protection to the verbal and combined trademarks "Sausage Standard" according to certificates of the Russian Federation No. 812084 and 680891. The objection was motivated by non-compliance with the requirements established by paragraphs 1, 3, 6, and 8 of Article 1483 of the Civil Code. The copyright holder of these trademarks is Starodvorskie Kolbasy JSC. Zuykov and partners represented the interests of the copyright holder in these cases. In the new consideration of cases no. SIP-733/2023 and SIP-732/2023, the court of first instance, taking into account the decisions of the IP Court Presidium, upheld Rospatent's decisions and refused to satisfy the objections of the Vladimir Standard company. Disagreeing with the decisions of the courts of first instance in the new consideration of cases No. SIP-733/2023, SIP-732/2023, the Vladimir Standard company appealed to the Presidium with cassation complaints. The Presidium of the IP Court decided to dismiss the cassation complaints of the Vladimir Standard company and leave the courts' decisions of the first instance of 07/01/2024 and 07/19/2024 in force. When presenting the circumstances of this case, it is necessary to pay special attention to determining the strengths and weaknesses of the trademark. The Presidium noted that in the case where a trademark consists of several words, it is necessary to determine whether they are not perceived as stable indivisible phrases or phraseological units. Several words may begin to be perceived as a single verbal element, including based on the features of the compositional construction of trademark elements. The determination of the number of elements in a trademark is carried out based on its perception by consumers. At the same time, the conclusion about the number of elements of a particular trademark does not depend on the basis on which the trademark's protectability is checked. If the element of the disputed trademark is a single one, then its strength is determined entirely. Thus, the legal protection of the verbal and combined trademarks "Sausage Standard" according to the certificates of the Russian Federation No. 812084 and 680891 was upheld, and the interests of the copyright holder, represented by Zuykov and partners, were protected. #law #court #trademark #ip https://lnkd.in/dVnS6A6W

The Intellectual Property Rights Court did not satisfy the claim of Gift LLC to challenge the decision of Rospatent, which refused to register Milk Wave's trademark for the beverage class. The reason for the refusal of registration was the similarity with the brand of chocolate bars Milky Way, controlled by the American company Mars. According to the company's website materials, Gift distributes alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. The company has been trying to register Milk Wave's brand since 2022. Now, it sells drinks in 0.25-l aluminum cans in six different flavors. Yuri Yakhin, advisor to the intellectual property practice of Melling, Voitishkin and Partners, notes that Gift may try to challenge the decision in the cassation instance. But, in his opinion, there are few chances to defend the brand. Patent attorney Sergey Zuykov calls the only way for Gift to get the Milk Wave's trademark is to file a lawsuit for early termination of registration of the Milky Way brand, citing the fact that it is not used in Russia. But it will be difficult to argue this: according to NTech calculations, in January—June, Milky Way accounted for 3.3% of the total natural sales of chocolate bars in Russia. Mr. Yakhin says that Russian companies often start selling products without waiting for the official registration of a trademark. But such an approach, according to the lawyer, creates risks. In the case of the Gift, the decisions of Rospatent and the Intellectual Property Court entered into force, and now Mars has the right to apply to the manufacturer and sellers of these drinks, demanding the withdrawal of products from circulation and monetary compensation. Mr. Zuykov calls the scenario of such a trial likely. #trademark #rospatent #ip #law https://lnkd.in/dshRpUHF

Due to competition law violations, the Federal Antimonopoly Service issued instructions on the return to the budget of funds received from the sale of generic drugs under patent protection at state trade unions. Axelpharm must return 960.8 million rubles, proceeds from the supply of antitumor ruxolitinib (the original drug is "Jakavi" from Swiss Novartis), and Akrikhin — 577.7 million rubles for antidiabetic dapagliflozin ("Forsiga" from British—Swedish AstraZeneca). Companies have also been ordered to stop the turnover of generics. Akrikhin reminds us that no judicial act has established a violation of AstraZeneca's exclusive right when introducing the generic dapagliflozin into circulation. The company, like other manufacturers of dapagliflozin analogs, disputed the legality of extending AstraZeneca's rights to the drug, believing that the inventions had passed into the public domain. Sergey Zuykov, Managing Partner of Zuykov and partners, calls the new decisions of the regulator precedent-setting for the pharmaceutical market. The support of the FAS strengthens the position of the originators, says Konstantin Suvorov, partner of Kosenkov and Suvorov. According to him, they could follow the path of antitrust proceedings because of the possibility of causing significant financial damage to violators. #patent #russia #ip #law https://lnkd.in/dKqA9bdc

On June 24, 2024, the EU adopted a package of sanctions against Russia. The 14th package is described in Council Regulation 2024/1745 amending EU Regulation No. 833/2014. INTA questions the compliance of article 5s of this package with the obligations under national and most-favored-nation treatment set out in international treaties such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Madrid Agreement on the International Registration of Marks (Madrid Protocol), the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Trademark Law Treaty and various free trade agreements. In addition, the effects of article 5s may impose a significant burden on the legitimate owners of intellectual property rights in Europe. #sanctions #law #russia #eu https://lnkd.in/dYgbPTSJ

On October 10, 2024, the IP Court considered case No. SIP-58/2023 on the application of Pfizer Products Inc. to invalidate the decision of Rospatent dated October 31, 2022, adopted following the consideration of the objection to the issuance of Russian patent No. 2315052 for the group of inventions "Crystalline form of 3-{(3R,4R)-4-methyl-3-[methyl-(7n-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidin4-yl) amino ]piperidin-1-yl}-3-oxo-propionitrile monocitrate and its use." PSK Pharma LLC, whose interests were represented by Zuykov and partners, was brought in to participate in the case as a third party that did not make independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute. By the resolution of the IP Court Presidium dated 05/30/2024, the previous decision of the IP Court dated 12/19/2023 on case No. SIP-58/2023 was canceled, and the case was sent for a new consideration to the IP Court as a court of first instance. Having examined the disputed patent, taking into account the comments of the Presidium of the IP Court, the panel of judges concluded that the key issue of this case is to determine the purpose of the disputed invention in the form in which it was formulated by the patent holder. Not only the content of the patent was to be established, but also the previously expressed positions of the same applicant about the same invention, including those made in the framework of case No. SIP-1031/2020, as well as his previous behavior about the disputed patent. In other words, the applicant's integrity was subject to investigation. Upon reconsideration, the court of first instance, taking into account the instructions of the court of cassation, decided to leave the claims of Pfizer Products Inc. to invalidate the decision of Rospatent dated 10/31/2022, adopted based on the results of consideration of the objection to the grant of Russian patent No. 2315052 for a group of inventions, without satisfaction. #ip #law #pfizer #patent #russia https://lnkd.in/d5AEK_bB

Understanding trademark popularity and protection in Russia. Olga Plyasunova, Head of the Trademark Department at Zuykov and partners, explains the concept and available protection for well-known trademarks in Russia with advice on how to obtain such a privilege. Read the full article here on page 29 👉 https://lnkd.in/epwF3BHw #trademark #lawyer #trademarkpopularity #protection #russia #wellknownmarks #advice #IPlaw

Amendments to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation regarding the procedure for using orphan works came into force on October 21, 2024. In this article, we will analyze when a work's author (copyright holder) is considered unknown, and how the procedure for obtaining the right to use an orphan work is carried out. The collective rights management organization may grant the applicant a non-exclusive royalty-free license to use the work. It will be possible to start using the orphan's work after payment of remuneration, which is credited to the nominal account of the collective rights management organization. #copyright #ip #law #russia https://lnkd.in/duPdn9uK

On September 10, the Moscow City Court considered and dismissed the appeals of TEKHKUB LLC and ES EL GRUPP LLC filed against the decision of the Cheryomushkinsky District Court of Moscow, accepted on the claim of Kirill A. Knyazev to recover compensation from TEKHKUB LLC and ES EL GRUPP LLC for the illegal use of a copyrighted object. The object is the design of the housing for the video module of the Intel Realsense D415 camera (case No. 33-41009/2024). The plaintiff's claims were partially satisfied, and the defendants were jointly and severally ordered to pay compensation of 32,461,242 rubles and 84 kopecks. The interests of the plaintiff Knyazev K.A. were represented by the company Zuykov and partners. The Moscow City Court, having considered the appeals' arguments and leaving the court of first instance's decision unchanged, recognized as lawful and justified the court of first instance's conclusion that the case materials confirm that Knyazev K.A. owns the exclusive right to the design of the video module housing. The defendants used the disputed design even though they did not present evidence in the case materials, including with the appeal, indicating the consent of the copyright holder to use the disputed design. #russia #law #ip #copyright https://lnkd.in/dj22Sdsa