FAIR USE
definition in Russian law and, consequently, should be regulated on the basis of judicial interpretation. For a long time there were no significant decisions in Russian courts concerning this problem; as a result, there was a legal vacuum in this respect in the country.
However, two important decisions on this matter have been issued recently by Russian courts (Case No. А40-109143/10-51-962 and Case No. А40-108056/10-19-956). In both cases, respondents used third party trademarks and referred to some circumstances justifying such a use. Now Russian courts have begun the process of interpreting the limits of the exclusive rights to trademarks and fair use of trademarks in descriptive and comparative terms.
In these two court decisions, trademark owners sought to prohibit the use of their registered trademarks for the goods they had been registered for, and the owners claimed damages for the infringement. In both cases, the respondents used designations which were identical to the registered trademarks and for the same goods they had been registered for. In one case, the trademark was used on the packages of goods; in the other, the trademark was used in advertising leaflets.
At a glance, these court decisions in similar situations contradict each other. In the first case concerning the trademark ‘Epson’, the courts established the fact of infringement, ruled to destroy the infringing packages of goods, and ruled compensation of one million rubles ($33,000). In the other case, concerning the trademark ‘Flukostat’, the court fully dismissed the claim.
However, a review of the court decisions and the essence of the disputes led us to the conclusion that the decisions conformed to the general principles of fair use applied internationally. In the first case, the respondent, the Russian company Iks-Technology, used the trademark Epson on the cartridges compatible with some Epson printers, and the designation was printed in bold script on the face front of packages. Moreover, the designation Epson appeared in the consignment notes and invoices that explicitly served for identification of goods and not only for information about product compatibility.
Te appellate court further stated: “Te respondent’s reference to the fact that printing the word ‘Epson’ had a purely informative function to indicate the compatibility of the product sold by the respondent and the goods sold under the trademark ‘Epson’ is not substantiated, and is dismissed by the court of appellate instance since the word ‘Epson’ does not contain any technical information, and all printer models have specific
designations of digits and letters. Besides, applying ... the designation ‘Epson’ ... on the packages of goods sold by the respondent may form the consumer’s opinion that the goods are produced with the approval and under the control of the claimant and the owner of the trademark ‘Epson’.”
In the second case, the respondent, Pfizer International LLC, used the designation ‘Flukostat’ (the claimant’s registered trademark) in advertising leaflets of its pharmaceutical preparation Diflukan. On the reverse side of the leaflets, the respondent placed a table where the Diflukan preparation was compared to analogous preparations of other producers, including Flukostat. Te dismissal of the claim by the courts of first instance and appellate instance was motivated as follows: “Te court was guided by the fact that the designation ‘Flukostat’ in the advertising leaflet was not intended to identify the respondent’s goods and did not identify them, which made impossible the confusion of the goods’ producers by the consumers in this case.”
Te court of the appellate instance additionally noted that: “[the claim that] the respondent used in his/her advertisement a designation that was not confusingly similar to, but identical with, the claimant’s trademark, is rejected by the court since the claimant’s trademark was not used for the designation of the respondent’s goods.”
We believe that despite some subtleties and imperfections in the decisions’ wording, the relevant court decisions give some certainty to the fair use problem in Russia. In the first case, the respondent used a third person’s trademark for illegal identification of goods. In the second case, the respondent took no such action, and the boundary between fair and illegal use was not crossed. Unfortunately, in both cases the courts abstained from evaluating the respondents’ actions
74 World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2012
www.worldipreview.com
from the viewpoint of fair practices and abuse of rights. We presume that the opinion of the courts on lawfulness and fairness of the comparison of one’s own goods with the goods of a competitor would make a significant contribution to the development of trademark law in Russia.
In conclusion, a solution to the complicated legal problem of fair use of trademarks is gradually taking shape in Russia due to judicial interpretations. At the end of February, the Supreme Arbitrazh Court refused to reconsider the decision concerning the Flukostat case, and so it finally confirmed the correctness of such an approach. n
Alexey Zalesov is head of Sojuzpatent’s litigation department. He can be contacted at:
zalesov@sojuzpatent.com
Tatiana Petrova is head of Sojuzpatent’s trademark department. She can be contacted at:
petrova@sojuzpatent.com
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180