CATEGORY: Trademarks
CASE: Human Stem Cells Institute vs. FAMILIES, Shchukarev
>DETAILS: Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 26, 2020 in case No. A40-14914/2018
DESCRIPTION: The defendant in the case of infringement of the exclusive right cannot recover from the right holder the court costs exceeding the awarded damages
CATEGORY: Trademarks
CASE: IE Ibatullin vs. Rospatent, Istok
DETAILS: Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 11, 2020 in case No. SIP-819/2018
DESCRIPTION: While challenging the grant of legal protection to a trademark because it is against the public interest, the complaining person's proprietary interest should be construed as broadly as possible
_____________________________________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Trademarks
CASE: Paldo Co. vs. Rospatent, Mareven Food Holdings Limited vs.Rospatent
DETAILS: Ruling of the Intellectual Property Rights Court dated October 23, 2020 in case No. SIP‑1099/2019; Ruling of the Intellectual Property Rights Court dated December 11, 2020 in case No. SIP-961/2019.
DESCRIPTION: Reputation of the trademark is determined with respect not only the trademark holder, but also to its affiliates
_____________________________________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Trademarks
CASE: TRIVIUM-XXI vs. FCS
DETAILS: Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 22, 2020 in case No. A40-241863/2018
DESCRIPTION: For qualifying for entry in the Customs Intellectual Property Register, there is no need to provide evidence of the exclusive right infringement
_____________________________________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Unfair Competition
CASE: FAS Russia vs. Daimler A.G., FAS Russia vs. CIB Corporation
DETAILS: Decision dated August 27, 2020 in case No. 1-14-163/00-08-18, Decision dated August 19, 2020 in case No. 1-14-164/00-08-18
DESCRIPTION: Unjustified refusal to grant permission for the import of the goods is an act of unfair competition
_____________________________________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Unfair Competition
CASE: Zelenodolsk Polymer Processing Plant Era vs. FAS Russia
DETAILS: Ruling of the Intellectual Property Rights Court dated March 06, 2020 in case No. SIP-179/2019
DESCRIPTION: Antitrust offense cases related to the acquisition and use of the exclusive trademark rights fall within the jurisdiction of the central office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service
__________________________________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Patents
CASE: Genentech Inc. vs.Rospatent
DETAILS: Ruling of the Intellectual Property Rights Court dated July 09, 2020 in case No. SIP-417/2019
DESCRIPTION: The patent holder bears the risk that an additional patent application may be rejected if the comments of Rospatent are not taken into account
_____________________________________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Patents
CASE: Routek Limited vs. Rospatent
DETAILS: Ruling of the Intellectual Property Rights Court dated July 13, 2020 in case No. SIP-905/2019
DESCRIPTION: Partial annulment of the patent does not prevent the extension up to 5 years of the patent
_____________________________________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Copyright and Related Rights
CASE: S.B.A. MUSIC PUBLISHING vs. Google LLC
DETAILS: Decision of the Moscow City Court dated December 11, 2020 in case No. 3-1523/2020
DESCRIPTION: The copyright holder succeeded in disabling the pirated application for the first time.
*Russia's first ever case over the application of the new protection mechanism provided for by the Law on Information, Information Technology, and Information Protection.
_____________________________________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Copyright and Related Rights
CASE: IE Chernus vs. Ryzhiy Kot, Arkhey
DETAILS: Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 17, 2020 in case No. A40-46622/2019
DESCRIPTION: The deposit only confirms the existence of the copyright objects at the time of the deposit, but does not, ipso facto, confirm the right of authorship for such objects
_____________________________________________________________________________
*Bonus
CASE: IE Ivus vs. KIA MOTORS RUSSIA & CIS, HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING RUS
DETAILS: Decision of the Moscow City Arbitration Court dated October 23, 2020 in case No. А40-103757/19
DESCRIPTION: The legal action for the largest amount of compensation in 2020, exceeding RUB 90 billion