in PDF format

CATEGORY: Trademarks
CASE: Sony vs. PAG
DETAILS: Resolution of the Constitutional Court No. 8-P dated 13 February 2018
SUMMARY: Unlike the counterfeit, the original (grey) product cannot be destroyed under the court judgment (unless it endangers human health, the environment or cultural heritage) and it is impossible to recover a large compensation

______________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Trademarks
CASE: Azbuka Vkusa vs. Registrar R01
DETAILS: Resolution of the Intellectual Property Court dated 4 July 2018 in case No. А40-132026/2017
SUMMARY: The registrar of domain names may terminate domain delegation, hence the court may oblige it to prevent the infringement
_________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Trademarks
CASE: Heineken United Breweries vs. Samara Vodka Distillery
DETAILS: Ruling of the Supreme Court dated 21 March 2018 in case No. А55-5711/2014
SUMMARY: A bankrupt entity’s trademark can only be acquired at an auction. It may not be terminated early in court
_______________________________________________
CATEGORY: Trademarks
CASE: Conde Nast, Sinergia Capital vs. Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent)
DETAILS: Ruling of the Supreme Court dated 3 July 2018 in case No. А40-210165/2016
SUMMARY: Shared ownership of a Russian trademark is impermissible (e.g., 50:50)
__________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Patents
CASE: Novartis vs. Nativa
DETAILS: Resolution of the Intellectual Property Court dated 24 April 2018 in case No. А41-85807/2016
SUMMARY: Preparations to launch a generic drug 3+ years before the patent to the original drug expires constitute a threat of patent infringement
___________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Patents
CASE: Nativa vs. Celgene
DETAILS: Resolution of the Intellectual Property Court dated 27 December 2018 in case No. А40-71471/2017
SUMMARY: The sub-patent holder may obtain a compulsory license (the dispute was settled)
____________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Copyright and Related Rights
CASE: RAO vs. Kis
DETAILS: Resolution of the Ninth Appellate Commercial Court dated 11 December 2018 in case No. А40-132111/2018
SUMMARY: Taxi companies do not have to pay RAO for playing music inside the taxicabs
____________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Copyright and Related Rights
CASE: VKontakte vs. Double, National Bureau of Credit Histories
DETAILS: Resolution of the Intellectual Property Court dated 24 July 2018 in case No. А40-18827/2017
SUMMARY: If it has relevant proof, the owner of a social network may prohibit commercial use of information on the users
___________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Unfair Competition
CASE: IFTS vs. Shopping and Entertainment Mall Olimp
DETAILS: Resolution of the Intellectual Property Court dated 6 December 2018 in case No. А49-10974/2017
SUMMARY: If a word is not directly associated with the Olympics insignia, it can be used in a trade name
__________________________________________________
CATEGORY: Unfair Competition
CASE: Pharmstandart vs. PC Pharm-pro
DETAILS: Decision of the FAS of Russia dated 15 February 2018 in case No. 1-14-165/00-08-17
SUMMARY: Imitation of packaging is easier to demonstrate for low-cost goods, since consumers’ attention drops when choosing among them
 _________________________________________________
*Bonus
CASE: Leonov A.I. vs. Trsarkov I.I.
DETAILS: Resolution of the Ninth Appellate Commercial Court dated 15 May 2018 in case No. А40-124668/2017
SUMMARY: Cryptocurrency was deemed to be property