February 9 Main results of the day

The exclusive right of the Principal was defended in the intellectual property court!

Initially, the opponents in the case appealed to the arbitration court with a claim to ban the use of the design object – the snowplow control panel, pointing out that the control panel used by the Principal as part of the snowplow is a reworking of the control panel, the exclusive rights to which belong to the Plaintiff.

Konstantin Tkachenko, Head of the practice of legal support for entrepreneurship, managed to prove that the object of exclusive rights, the copyright holder of which was the Plaintiff, and the object of exclusive rights belonging to the Principal were created simultaneously by the same author in China. This means that it was not possible to determine which of the two designs was primary and which was derivative, both of these objects existed in civil circulation with an independent legal fate. In addition, the condition on the alienation of the exclusive right in the agreement between the Plaintiff and the primary copyright holder did not make it possible to determine which specific object of exclusive rights was the subject of the agreement, which led to the non-conclusion of an agreement on the alienation of the exclusive right.

As a result, the intellectual property rights court upheld the judicial act, which refused to satisfy the claims in full, and the Principal retained the possibility of further unhindered sale of goods.

Repeated clarification of the claim was recognized by the court as an abuse of law.

The Moscow Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the claim of a company participant against the company – the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” – for the obligation to transfer the company’s documents and to collect a legal penalty in the amount of 30,000 rubles for each day of non-fulfillment of the requirement.

The court agreed with the arguments of Rashid Gitinov, Head of the Bureau’s practice, about the Plaintiff’s abuse of procedural law in connection with the Plaintiff’s filing of three applications of clarification of claims throughout the trial. To substantiate these demands, the Plaintiff referred to repeated written requests during the consideration of the dispute for the presentation of more and more new documents, which were sent to the company 2 weeks before the next court hearing. The court also took into account the fact that the Bureau’s Principal presented to the court and the company participant at the last meeting all the documents that were submitted by the opponent in the last clarified claim sent to the company the day before the meeting.