InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

Russia: Medieval indulgence resuscitated




It was a good idea to buy indulgence for sins committed in the Middle Ages. As time went on, humankind dropped the idea of buying expiation for money. However the idea survived through the ages and found a new expression in the market economy. The idea lacks inventive level or novelty but some people all the same are lured into believing that there may be something in it. It is like a Ponzi scheme: people plunge into the adventure, come out befooled, some time passes and other people believe they will have a better luck.

Russian IP law introduced the concept of trade name (commercial concession in Russian) in 2008. The owner of a trade name shall have exclusive rights for it if it is known on a certain territory within the Russian Federation. It does not require registration or any other fixation in the official documents. Soon after, one of the Russian patent attorneys concocted a register which he promoted for inclusion of trade names. The certificates which he issued strikingly resembled the certificates for trade marks issued by the real Patent Office which in his opinion added gravitas to the certificate.

Surprisingly, some companies swallowed the bait though the business has not become prosperous. As time went by, there appeared a follower. There is a truth universally acknowledged: certificates for registration of trade marks are valid if they are issued by the Patent Office and registered in the State Trade Mark Register. However this axiom had to be confirmed by court in 2013.

An individual entrepreneur initiated a court action in the commercial court in the Republic of Buryatiya (Siberia) against M-Center Ltd. The claim was to ban the manufacture of products under the name Baikal-M1 in respect of fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and dietetic substances for medicinal purposes, and to ban the manufacture of products under the name Tamir in respect of bacterial and biological preparations excepting those for medical and veterinary purposes.

The claimant based his claims on the fact that he is the owner of exclusive rights for the following trade marks:

  • word trade mark 231505 Baikal-M;
  • word trade mark 231507 Tamir; and
  • figurative trademark 208645.

The respondent acknowledged the use of all three trade marks and argued that he was using the trade mark on lawful basis. To support his statements he produced "certificates of registration of intellectual property" numbers 13-08 and 13-09 dated April 18 2013 for combined designations Baikal Fertilizer and Tamir Fertilizer. The certificates had been issued by Intellectual Property NoProblem Ltd – a telling name!

The court concluded that the plaintiff was right in his claims and noted (for those who fell out of time) that trade mark certificates are issued by the Patent Office after registration in the State Register of Trade Marks according to Article 1504 of the Civil Code. It also noted that "certificates of registration of intellectual property" issued by Intellectual Property NoProblem Ltd could be regarded as a practical joke.

What is still missing in the picture are patents to be granted by QuasiPatents Co.

Vladimir Biriulin

Gorodissky & Partners
Russia 129010, Moscow
B. Spasskaya Str
25, stroenie 3
Tel: +7 495 937 6116 / 6109
Fax: +7 495 937 6104 / 6123
pat@gorodissky.ru
www.gorodissky.com


Comments






profile

Managing IP

ManagingIP

ManagingIP profile

Rich pickings: how Hollywood rivals will profit from Weinstein's downfall https://t.co/3v4ZamycWP Analysis of Weinstein Co IP via @guardian

Oct 20 2017 03:32 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

RT @BakerMcK_LonIP: Read @BakerIPnewsDACH and @BakerMcK_LonIP summary in @ManagingIP on the BGH's #3D chocolate packaging decision 🍫🇩🇪🇬🇧htt…

Oct 20 2017 02:28 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Bea Swedlow takes over from Randi Karpinia as @WomenInIP Committee chair at #aiplaAM17 - "Randi keeps me in check + I keep her out of check!

Oct 20 2017 11:57 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog


null null null

October 2017

Courts grapple with scope of patent protection

The Supreme Court’s decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly introduced a doctrine of equivalents and arguably also established a doctrine of prosecution history estoppel in the UK. We look at the law across Europe, and the impact the decision might have. Kingsley Egbuonu, Michael Loney and James Nurton set the scene



Most read articles

Supplements