March 7 Main results of the day

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region included the Principal’s claims in the register of creditors’ claims of his debtor in the amount of 1.3 million rubles, and also recognized the creditor’s collateral status as justified. The completeness of the evidence presented by the lawyers of the MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure” made it possible to consider the application in one court session and exclude the objections of the persons participating in the case. The interests of the Principal were represented by Viktor Pokormyak, lawyer, member of the Presidium of the Bureau, and Ksenia Stikhina, senior lawyer.

The Arbitration Court of the Volga District sided with the Principal and overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instance, and the case was sent for a new hearing to the arbitration court of first instance in a dispute over invalidation of the contract for the performance of work on the reclamation of a landfill. Satisfying the cassation appeal of the Principal, the panel of judges agreed with the arguments of the Bureau’s lawyers that the consideration of a dispute about the invalidity of a contract of high social significance should also take into account the environmental consequences that a stoppage of work could lead to. Because in this case, the lower courts did not take into account that challenging the contract on formal grounds creates a threat of violating the rights of an indefinite number of people – residents of settlements close to the test site. The interests of the Principal were represented by Yakov Prisyazhnyuk and Konstantin Tkachenko, Heads of the Bureau’s practices.

A large foreign manufacturer of manicure products filed a claim with the Moscow Arbitration Court against the Bureau’s Client to recover compensation for violation of his trademark rights. According to the Plaintiff, the Client allegedly sold counterfeit products without a license agreement. To support his arguments, the Plaintiff attached to the claim a video recording of the test purchase, a cash receipt and a purchased copy of the counterfeit. At the same time, we were able to prove that the Client did not actually sell counterfeit products, the attached cash receipt was issued due to the sale of other goods, and the main evidence of the opponents, the video recording, was made under unclear circumstances and does not support the arguments of the stated claim. The Client’s interests were represented by Yakov Bulut, Bureau’s lawyer.

The Moscow Arbitration Court resolved the dispute in favor of the Principal regarding the contract for the performance of engineering surveys, development of design and working documentation. The dispute between the parties arose due to the fact that the Principal did not fully complete the work under the contract (as a percentage of 95%). The opponent filed a claim against the Principal to collect a penalty for late completion of work in the amount of 518 million for the 4th stage of the work. However, Katana Ruslan, the senior lawyer of the economic disputes practice, managed to convince the court of first instance that the 4th stage of the work could not be qualified as a stage for which a penalty could be collected, since it depended on the joint actions of the parties. For other stages (1, 2, 3), the statute of limitations has already passed. The Bureau’s lawyer also drew attention to the fact that the accrual of a penalty in this case, based on the total amount of the contract, is unlawful, since the work was completed by 95%. As a result, the Moscow Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the Opponent’s claims to recover a penalty from the Principal in the amount of 518 million in full.

The Tverskoy District Court of Moscow again rejected the claim against the Principal at the second round of consideration! The opponent in the case, who is the artistic director of the theater, filed a statement of claim in court to recognize himself as the owner of exclusive rights to a number of performances and their staging. Previously, Nikita Filippov, lawyer of the “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, won the case in the courts of first and appellate instances, but the cassation instance returned the case for a new trial. On March 4, 2024, in the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, the lawyer again managed to prove that the rights to the results of the artistic director’s work did not belong to the heir, the court retained the theater’s rights to use the results of intellectual activity.