RUSSIAN DOMAINS
One of the main concerns for companies trying to develop or sustain their brands in Russia is cybersquatting. Denis Khabarov and Alisa Fomina consider recent cases that will have a big impact.
which the trademark is registered. Tis means that the disputed domain name must be an active website offering goods and/or services similar or identical to those covered by the claimant’s trademark registration.
Tis approach produced a detrimental effect upon the potential domain name recuperation claims of numerous trademark owners in Russia for more than a decade. In many cases, cybersquatters used the domain names for other goods and services or refrained from using them at all.
However, there seems to be a positive trend in domain name disputes in Russia, as demonstrated by a precedent-setting 2011 case
regarding infringement of exclusive rights to a trademark
www.worldipreview.com
against the owner of a domain name who was using a name identical to the trademark for an ‘empty’ website.
Te French champagne producer GH Mumm & Cie sued the owner of the
mumm.ru domain name in the Moscow Arbitrazh Court for infringement of exclusive rights to the trademark ‘Mumm’ (registered on August 19, 1986 in Classes 32 and 33 in the name of GH Mumm & Cie), requesting it to enjoin the defendant from using its trademark Mumm in the domain
mumm.ru on the Internet. Te domain
mumm.ru was used by its administrator, Shukhrat Yusupov, for an empty website.
By virtue of Clause 3, Article 1484, Part 4 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, only the
trademark owner possesses the exclusive right to use the trademark for distinguishing the goods, works or services for which the trademark is registered, including by using the trademark in sales offers, advertisements and on the Internet, including in domain names.
Following a trend established over the last decade in Russia that use of a domain name was actionable only if a domain name containing a trademark belonged to an active website dealing with goods/ services covered by the trademark’s registration, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court dismissed the claim and determined that an inactive website cannot infringe trademark rights. Te plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Appellation Arbitrazh Court, arguing that the defendant prevented the trademark owner
Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 2 45
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68