GROUP: Unfair competition
CASE: Charity fund Fund Podari Zhizn vs. NPO Charity fund Podari Zhizni
RULING: Ruling of the Supreme court dated 11.07.2017 case № 53-КГ17-12
SUMMARY: The business name of the non-profit organization is not an intellectual property at the same time it is a moral right of the legal entity. Registration of the similar business name may be an unfair competition.
GROUP: Unfair competition
CASE: Henkel Rus vs. Importtrade
RULING: Decision of the UFAS of Kursk region dated 02.02.2017 case № 03-05/47-2016
SUMMARY: Copying of the product packaging violates both design (IP) and trade dress (not IP).
CASE: Publisher Pan press vs. REN TV, Production center AN-film
RULING: Ruling of the IP Court dated 15.02.2017 case №А40-233779/2015
SUMMARY: If a stage-prop (for example: an illustrated book) is a plot generating object (through artistic value, length of time shown, purpose of use) it is necessary to obtain a copyright owner’s consent.
CASE: Music right vs. First channel
RULING: Ruling of the IP Court dated 30.01.2017 case №А40-14248/2016
SUMMARY: The audio recording (IP) in TV show does not fall within the scope of the collective management. The royalty payments in favor of collective management organization do not prove the legitimacy of Defendant’s actions without a signed contract with copyright owner.
CASE: Ilya Varlamov vs. Arkhi.ru
RULING: Ruling of the Supreme court dated 25.04.2017 № 305-ЭС16-18302
SUMMARY: Citation (quotation — use without copyright owner’s consent) is applicable not only for the texts, but for any works such as photos.
CASE: BuildCity vs. DVIN
RULING: Ruling of the Supreme court dated 14.04.2017 № 305-ЭС15-7110
SUMMARY: Defendants in patent infringement cases may refer on posterior use (patent use in term of its temporary termination) not only in case of production but also in any case of patent use (advertisement, storage, purchasing etc.)
CASE: Shato-Arno vs. VASCOM
RULING: Ruling of the Supreme court dated 30.05.2016 case №СИП-1070/2014
SUMMARY: The legal entities may demand the court to decrease the compensation (the floating amount and double cost of the counterfeited products) amount as well as the sole proprietors.
CASE: Marie Brizard Wine & Spirits vs. Belweder Rus, SpetsYurTorg, YD Trading
RULING: Ruling of the Supreme court dated 10.02.2017 № 305-ЭС15-4129
SUMMARY: The transfer of the exclusive right has not allowed as far as the threat of misrepresentation exist, it is not required to prove such misrepresentation.
CASE: GK Accent vs. Rospatent, DIAL INGENIRING
RULING: Ruling of the IP Court dated 27.03.2016 case №СИП-464/2016
SUMMARY: The right-holder can not register similar trademarks for similar (full or in part) goods (services), it contradicts the public concerns.
CASE: TD Grass vs. Noviye Khimicheskie Technology
RULING: Ruling of the IP Court dated 16.01.2017 case №СИП-185/2016
SUMMARY: Nominal use of a trademark is not sufficient protection against a claim for early termination of a trademark
CASE: Criminal case of Makin E.A.
RULING: Ruling of the Sovetskiy district court of Nizhniy Novgorod dated 11.04.2017 case № 1-112/2017
SUMMARY: The theft in online games’ virtual goods is qualified as a crime under the Article 272 of the Criminal Code (unlawful access to computer-protected information).