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

Russia: Afterworld knocks on the door of the Supreme Court




Trade marks are attributes of goods and services. Unfortunately, there is a specific service which none can avoid: funeral service.

The owner of trade mark number 487945, which included the words Ritual Service (funeral service), initiated a court action against the owner of a funeral home which used the words "funeral service" to designate the funeral home itself as well as using the words in various documents accompanying the funeral services.

The court of first instance upheld the claims of the plaintiffs. The judgment was appealed in the court of appeal, which dismissed the plaintiff's claims. The case was appealed in the IP court, which cancelled all previous judgments and sent down the case for a new examination. In so doing IP court pointed out that factual circumstances had not been properly investigated and evaluated. This time the owner of the funeral home appealed the judgment in the Supreme Court and asked it to cancel the ruling of the IP court and leave in force the judgment of the court of appeal.

The Supreme Court noted that the words "funeral service" in the trade mark are disclaimed from protection. The court of first instance issued a judgment in favour of the trade mark owner arguing that the entrepreneurs render similar services. The court of appeal cancelled that judgment arguing that the words "funeral service" are disclaimed from protection. The IP court ruled that the case should be re-examined because in its opinion it was necessary to investigate the confusing similarity of the words with consideration for the activities of the conflicting parties on the same territory from the point of view of their graphic and visual similarity and existence of the dominating element.

The Supreme Court cut the Gordian knot in a few simple statements: the Civil Code provides in Article 1483 that a non-protectable element may exist in a trade mark but it should not dominate the trade mark, which means that it does not affect the general perception of the designation and should not be protected because it is a commonly used word. It also noted that the previous court instances confirmed that the words "funeral service" had been used by the respondent separately from the figurative part of the trade mark and were commonly used words. Hence, no more arguments were needed to make the final judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that the judgment of the court of appeal should be left in force meaning that that there was no infringement of the trade mark rights.


The case may seem trivial; funeral services were and will be rendered regardless of the hassle between the undertakers. What is worth noting is that this is the first case accepted for examination by the Supreme Court after the merger of the Supreme Commercial Court into the Supreme Court six months ago. The judgment is flawless. However it would have been better if its first IP case concerned a different trade mark because of the aftertaste that remains.

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

Yohan Liyanage of Linklaters says the Australian concept of "hottubbing" of experts "is something that has just com… https://t.co/1WOz8PtP6K

Dec 8 2017 09:48 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Nokia’s Adrian Howes discussing Huawei v ZTE in panel on FRAND and SEPs. “One of the big things coming out of the C… https://t.co/9qqJX1WIpR

Dec 8 2017 05:49 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Maximillian Haedicke of University of Freiburg reveals the equivalent of tea leaf reading in Germany is called coff… https://t.co/GNi9hYfKa4

Dec 8 2017 03:18 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog


null null null

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