CATEGORY: Patents
CASE: Sugen v. Nativa
DETAILS: Resolution of the Intellectual Property Court dated 29 October 2019 in Case No. А40-166505/2017
SUMMARY: The Court confirmed that it is possible to issue a compulsory licence for the use of an invention by the holder of an dependent patent
CATEGORY: Patents
CASE: Novartis v. Izvarino Pharma
DETAILS: Resolution of the Intellectual Property Court dated 7 October 2019 in Case No. SIP-744/2018
SUMMARY: Extension of an invention patent can be challenged based on the marketing authorisations for drugs with a similar active ingredient held by any parties, rather than just the patent holder
CATEGORY: Patents
CASE: AstraZeneca v. Jodas Expoim
DETAILS: Ruling of the Supreme Court dated 31 July 2019 in Case No. А40-106405/2018
SUMMARY: Preparatory steps with respect to a generic create a threat of patent infringement, if carried out within 3 or more years prior to the patent’s expiry. The court may revoke the marketing authorization to the generic
CATEGORY: Trademarks
CASE: Avito Holding AB v. Rospatent
DETAILS: Decision of the Intellectual Property Court dated 5 December 2019 in Case No. SIP-186/2019
SUMMARY: Whether a trademark is well-known is established with respect to the services rendered, irrespective of the party effectively rendering them
CATEGORY: Trademarks
CASE: Dixy Yug v. Registrator R01
DETAILS: Resolution of the Intellectual Property Court dated 22 October 2019 in Case No. А40-91339/2017
SUMMARY: A domain registrar is not an information intermediary, and its operations for making entries on domain names into the registry do not infringe the trademark
CATEGORY: Trademarks
DETAILS: Para. 4 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 10 dated 23 April 2019
SUMMARY: Only commercial courts have jurisdiction over disputes concerning means of individualization (save for appellations of origin), irrespective of the status of the parties
CATEGORY: Copyright and Related Rights
DETAILS: Para. 95 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 10 dated 23 April 2019
SUMMARY: Creation of a similar, but creatively independent work does not infringe the rights of the author of a prior work (parallel independent creation concept)
CATEGORY: Copyright and Related Rights
DETAILS: Para. 55 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 10 dated 23 April 2019
SUMMARY: A screenshot constitutes admissible evidence in courts
CATEGORY: Unfair Competition
CASE: Antitrust Service of Russia v. Lindt , Procter & Gamble , Henkel
DETAILS: Antitrust Service of Russia Warnings dated 3 December 2019 Nos. IA/106145/19, IA/106146/19, IA/106147/19
SUMMARY: Absence of information on the qualitative distinctions of a product (even on its improvement) on its label, for products manufactured for distribution in Russia and the EU, may violate the Antitrust Law
CATEGORY: Unfair Competition
CASE: Sycheva v. Terma
DETAILS: Resolution of the Intellectual Property Court dated 28 March 2019 in Case No. А45-5897/2016, Clarifications by the Antitrust Service of Russia No. AK/91352/19 on the use of the means of individualization as key terms
SUMMARY: Using another’s brand in the key terms of advertisement of competing goods may constitute unfair competition
*Bonus
CASE: Bulanov v. Mail.Ru
DETAILS: Appellate Ruling of the Moscow City Court dated 20 May 2019 in Case No. 33-21065/2019
SUMMARY: A user’s conduct in a computer game is governed by the terms of use (licence agreement) and is unenforceable