In the last few years they have told and written much enough on the interest criteria of the persons filing applications on early loss of effect of a trademark. After introduction into operation of the 4th part of the Civil Code of RF, the very notion of a person concerned who is entitled to claim an early loss of effect of a trademark, has gone over from one extremity to the other one. If, within about one year after adoption of the 4th part of the Civil Code of RF and before the beginning of 2009, any persons who had paid a fee for an application consideration on early termination of legal protection of a trademark were recognized to be persons concerned, then later on a severe restriction for "interest" was imposed. For the time being, having understood that a norm on early termination has almost ceased to function, a criterion of "interest" has again become very broad: the main thing is that a person who has filed an application should not be aimed at abusing the rights and creating problems to a right holder.
But the 4th part of the Civil Code of RF contains a specification of a necessity of an interest presence in a person who files not only an application on early loss of effect of a trademark due to the fact it is not used, but also those persons who address to the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent) with objections on all the criteria of the trademarks protectability stipulated by article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF.
A thought to write this article appeared after attending a judicial sitting devoted to an application considering on the Rospatent's resolution contestation (Case SIP-161/2013), under an objection of METRO Cash and Carry LLC that had cancelled the effect of trademark "BERGLAND" No. 321953 (an applicant specified that a trademark had indicated a place of the goods production). During the sitting a representative of METRO Cash and Carry specified told: "An interest of my appointer appeared after a right holder had filed a statement of claim to my appointer on the unlawful use termination of a trademark". Rospatent recognized such interest, and the other party of the proceedings (a right holder) contested the interest neither at Rospatent nor at court.
But is there an interest in a trademark contestation in a person who unlawfully uses it? And whether such person can have an interest in a trademark contestation arising only out of unlawful use of a similar designation?
Here one shall distinguish at once between an interest in early loss of a trademark effect in connection with its being unused and an interest in a trademark invalidation on other grounds, for example contestation of a mark as not complying with the criteria of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF.
The early termination principle proceeds from the basis that the government obliges a right holder to use a registered right and protects only that exclusive right against unlawful use or against similar marks registration, that is used. And it is quite evident that a person who is filed a suit against, on prohibition of any trademark/designation use, raises legally a question with a right holder: whether he/she uses his/her trademark? If he/she does then it can be protected and court shall prohibit other persons to use it unlawfully. But to what extent is it right to distribute automatically such interest when contesting rights on the grounds of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF?
After participation, for the last 5 years, in the hundreds of cases it has become quite evident that when contesting the rights for the trademarks on many grounds of a trademark protectability that are stated in article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF, such principle of an interest is not applicable and not acceptable. Moreover, when filing objections on trademarks invalidation an interest is different on each protectability criterion, for which reason each of the interest criteria needs a separate discussion. Clause 1 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF
1. State registration as trademarks of designations that don't have a distinctive ability or are composed only of elements, is not allowed:
1) that have entered into common use for designation of a certain kind of goods;
2) that are generally accepted symbols and terms;
3) that characterize the goods including those indicating their kind, quality, quantity, property, appropriation, value, as well as time, place and way of their production or sales;
4) that represent a form of goods that is determined exceptionally or mainly by a property or by appropriation of goods.
These elements can be included into a trademark as non-protectable elements if they don't take a dominant position in it.
The provisions of this clause are not applied in relation to the designations that have acquired a distinctive ability as a result of their use.
This clause needs to be divided into two parts:
●absolute grounds not incidental to stating of a place of the goods production or location of a manufacturer, and
● absolute grounds incidental to stating of a place of the goods production or location of a manufacturer. When contesting a trademark and having filed an objection to Rospatent, an applicant shall prove on almost all the grounds stated in this clause that a designation registered as a trademark did not have a distinctive ability as at a priority date and maybe could not obtain an additional distinctive ability. And to confirm an interest in contestation of rights, a person who has filed an objection shall provide evidence of the actual infringement of rights for a registered mark, having substantiated a necessity of its use in the economic turnover. Of course one can provide an evidence of an intention (preparation) of goods introduction havin a disputable designation, but solely an intention to use a disputable designation will be obviously not enough to prove a distinctive ability absence, that's why one will have to substantiate a distinctive ability absence by proofs of a disputable notation use by other persons before a disputable mark priority, including by an applicant according to a principle "others use and I want to use".
In the German legislation concerning the trademarks, the criteria of distinctive ability absence stated in clause 1 article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF are generalized by the following provision: a designation requested for registration can't be registered as a trademark since an unlimited set of persons needs to use such designation in the similar economic activities. Maybe some day we will come to such understanding of the absolute grounds for registration rejection and even article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF will be probably supplemented by such provision.
For the time being, without having such a ground, Rospatent for example registers a trademark "S pylu, s zharu" and the court has to protect it, to prohibit the use (Case А40-2569/2011). And when contesting this mark Rospatent establishes that the trademark "S pylu, s zharu" is not descriptive and is not indicative of the direct properties of the goods, without second-guessing , that's why the office considered that this mark registration was legally valid (Decision of Rospatent dd. 24.10.2012 No. 2009714885/50). But is there indeed anybody at Rospatent who believes that "S pylu, s zharu" – is not just cooked (maybe warmed up) bakery product? It turned out there are such people.
But let us return to discussion of clause 1 article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF. The text of the document contains the criteria that stand absolutely alone from the rest ones. These are the "designations that are indicative of… a place… of their production or sales".
Is confirmation of infringing merchandise sale sufficient for a mark contestation on this criterion? I believe that solely sale of infringing merchandise with a similar designation is insufficient to recognize a breaker of the rights as a person who is interested in loss of effect of such trademark.
If we assume that a mark protection lapses at an application of a person "concerned", then any person will be able to use a disputable designation. Does such approach takw into account justice? I believe it does not. Particularly for this reason (or it is one of the reasons) the so called "Soviet" brands are not cancelled. The principle is simple: it is better that a "Soviet" brand should be owned by at least anybody than nobody. Furthermore after such trademark cancellation an applicant of an objection or any other persons will in bad faith make use of that publicity and reputation that was created by a disputable mark over a period of its existence.
Having cancelled a trademark allegedly indicative of a place of goods manufacture, upon a person's application who sells infringing merchandise, Rospatent or court affords an opportunity to use a disputable mark to any person, in doing so it actually encourages infringing merchandise. That's why when cancelling a mark that is indicative of a place of production or location of a producer, Rospatent or court shall establish an "interest" of a person filing an objection premised on a real necessity to use a disputable designation in the economic turnover.
Our company has filed several times the objections against the trademarks' effect on the grounds that a disputable trademark:
●denotes a place of goods manufacture if a right holder is located in a region (city) which name coincides with a trademark;
●a consumer is misled by such designation because he/she believes that the goods are manufactured in the same region but the goods are manufactured in another place.
We substantiated these several times an interest in a trademark contestation by location of our appointer (applicant) in a region that reproduced a trademark.
For example, by order of company Redmond Home Appliances LLC located in city of Redmond, USA, we filed objections against the trademarks effect Redmond No. 349142, 395632. We substantiated an interest with a necessity of an applicant to denote its location – city of Redmond. Rospatent recognized an interest of an applicant but dismissed the objection (Decisions of Rospatent dd. 15.07.2010 No. 2006730177/50, 2007740523/50). Our appointer did not start disputing the decisions of Rospatent and did not enter the Russian market with the goods sale manufactured in city of Redmond.
But what might have been if company Redmond Home Appliances LLC located in city of Redmond, USA, would start selling the goods for which a trademark is registered, denoting on the goods a designation Redmond as its address? Would the Russian court prohibit this company to use the designation Redmond as an address?
I believe that court was not to have prohibited such use of a similar designation in case when a manufacturer stated it as its address, for which reason two goods that use the similar designations may appear on the market: the first, on which a registered trademark will be used, the second – on which some company will write the same designation as its address only.
If we imagine such situation, a question arises whether one needs to preserve such a marks if an objection is filed by a person who has a real necessity to use an identical mark? Are arguments in this case so much important that afford an opportunity to preserve the effect of such registrations: the fact that a self-named city is small, there are several cities in different countries with such name, the Russian consumer is unaware of these cities, such word is a common name in some country etc.? It is evident that a totality of these arguments on a real necessity to use a disputable mark by another person shall be confirmed by his/her interest.
One of the main criteria of interest can and shall be an opportunity of subsequent registration of a disputable designation as a trademark as a protected element or at least unprotected.
Clause 2 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF.
2. According to the international treaty of the Russian Federation, no state registration of the designations as trademarks is allowed that are composed only of the elements representing:
1) state emblems, flags and other symbol of states and signs;
2) abbreviated or full names of international and intergovernmental organizations, their emblems, flags, other symbols and signs;
3) official control, seals of guarantee or plate marks, seals, honors and other honorable distinctions;
4) designations confusingly similar to the elements specified in subclauses 1 - 3 of this clause.
Such elements can be included into a trademark as non-protectable elements if there is a consent of a respective competent authority thereto.
Before introduction of the 4th part of the Civil Code of RF, Rospatent registered the trademarks quite frequently which comprised parts of a flag of different countries (Russia, USA, the Great Britain, West Germany and others) and other altered symbols of a state, because formally there was not a prohibition on the similar designations registration.
But afterwards such registered trademark having obtained some publicity became the goal for its imitation, copying and unlawful use. Frequently as soon as a right holder starts struggling with infringing merchandise, an objection is filed against such trademark in which there is a specification of unlawful use of a state flag, emblem etc. Sometimes a permit of a competent authority for a flag/emblem registration as a trademark in the name of an applicant can be attached to such objection. Inter alia, an applicant substantiates an interest by such consent.
But in respect of this criterion as was specified earlier, a mark cancellation will result in origination of imitation, copy, false representation on the market. Will the rights of a person who owns the rights, restore? But such a person represents governments, governmental authorities and institutions. Such persons did not file objections and did not consider their rights as infringed. Even having given a consent for a similar designation registration of any organization, the state did not issue orders to protect an infringed right, filed no objections on its own. And if a person, rights holder for the different state symbols, i.e. a state - allows using its symbols of state, what for does is it need to cancel marks containing a partial reproduction of such symbols, at a person's application who has nothing to do with the state?
Rights cancellation bringsinfringing merchandise to the market, and namely those persons want to extinguish the rights who already either manufacture infringing merchandise or are going to manufacture it in the near future.
About 10 years ago a struggle between the former partners started for the rights for a series of trademarks Golden Eagle. In the course of mutual statements, objections and suits, an opportunity of the combined marks cancellation of Golden Eagle was considered. For example, a trademark Golden Eagle No. 216818 includes a picture of a part of the USA flag and body that is an official symbol of the USA. We have managed to convince our customer not to file an objection because we won't be able to substantiate an interest in a mark cancellation on the grounds mentioned.
Clause 3 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF. No state registration of designations as trademarks is allowed, representing or containing the elements:
1) that are false or capable of misleading a consumer in relation to the goods or its manufacturer;
2) that are detrimental to the public interests, principles of humanity and morals.
This clause for an interest determination is also divided into two parts.
Under subclause 1, everything is simple enough concerning an interest, because this ground is usually added to the grounds of clause 1 of article 1483 according to the principle: a trademark is descriptive for a part of the goods/services, for the rest part it misleads the consumer.
For example, the word "drops" or a picture of drops for a part of the 5th class goods of MKTU (International Classification of Goods and Services), that includes substantially pharmaceutical preparations and other preparations for medical goals that are directly drops (ear drops, ophthalmic drops or other ones) characterizes the goods, and for the rest part it misleads the consumer because the goods are not drops. That's why everything what is told about an interest under clause 1 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF, is also naturally applicable to this subclause.
Persons concerned on the ground "passing-off " are the persons who started selling the goods with the disputable mark before a date of a disputable mark priority.
But the situation with use and understanding of an interest criterion under subclause 2 of this article is much worse.
Premised on the word-for-word understanding of this subclause wording, the members of the public whose rights are infringed by a disputable mark can be persons concerned on this ground. For the benefit of the public, the representatives of the public authorities who have such powers, for example, the public prosecution service, can address to the office.
Can a trademark, that in opinion of an objection applicant conflicts with the public interests, principles of humanity and morals, infringe the interests of a legal entity? Can a legal entity be interested in a mark cancellation on this ground? If this person – is a non-commercial or public entity protecting the rights of the natural persons or consumers then it is evident that such organization can be a person concerned. But we have not managed to find a single objection considered by Rospatent on this ground against a trademark operation, that had been filed by a commercial entity.
On the other hand, Rospatent has considered too many objections to the expert's decisions rejecting the requested designations registration on the ground "contradiction to public interests". It turns out that Rospatent itself has become a person concerned? Or it protects the public interests…
The most interesting among the Rospatent's rejections to register designations as a trademark was an application for mark registration "Volodya i Medvedi".
From a court adjudication with regard to case No. А40-65503/2011:
Designations detrimental to the public interests, principles of humanity and morals, are also called "scandalous marks".
By virtue of the fact that from 2000 to 2008 the president of RF was Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin who is for the time being the current Prime Minister and the chairman of the political party "United Russia", and since 2008 the president of RF is Medvedev Dmitry Anatolievich, there exits a possibility of this designation perception by the Russian consumer as outplaying of the name and surname of the first persons of the government or name of the current Prime Minister and political party "United Russia" (in the associative reference to its symbol – in the shape of a bear).
So, use of a derivative of a name, surname of the persons who personify a country by themselves, and construal of a political party symbol on products of the 32nd, 33rd classes of MKTU (International Classification of Goods and Services)by the the collegium of the Chamber for Patent Disputes was assessed as dismissive attitude to the authorities. Therewith a requested designation causes damage to the image and interests of a government and, as consequence, contradicts to the public interests.
The courts didn't agree with Rospatent and obliged to register a trademark.
It is seen from a statement of motivation of a court adjudication that the persons interested in this mark cancellation could have been natural persons V.V. Putin and D.A. Medvedev or the state governed by them.
For all that I believe that none of the vodka producers for which this trademark was registered won't be interested in this mark cancellation on the ground "contradiction to public interests…".
But Rospatent in its belief that registration of "Volodya i Medvedi" designation contradicts to the public interests, registers for example the word "Yo Moyo" No. 505721 as a trademark.
From Rospatent's decision dd. 13.11.2013. No. 2012702519
So, an analysis of these data suggests that the verbal element "YO-MOYE" is irrelevant to abusive, foul language. Besides that, a requested designation contains a bright pictorial element that reminds of some cartoon character holding the verbal element "YO-MOYE".
It should be noted that this designation produces a positive impression and is associated well with such goods as ice-cream consumed both by children and grown-ups.
To contest such trademark on the criterion "contradiction to public interests" absolutely any person consuming ice-cream can be a person concerned.
But when registering the mark "Yo-moyo", Rospatent rejects a designation registration "Shire Khari" on basis of a contradiction to the public interests.
From Rospatent's decision dd. 21.09.2012. No. 2010729485/50
So, in its contents the word combination "SHIRE KHARI" relates on the whole to the category of the designations that have indecent (abusive) contents insulting the human dignity. In connection therewith the word combination under examination, should it be used as a trademark, can be perceived as abusive or humiliating the human dignity and, consequently, it contradicts to the public interests and principles of morals.
So, any practice of use is absent on this criterion, it will be interesting to keep track of its development.
Clause 4 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF. No state registration is allowed of designations as trademarks that are identical or confusingly similar to the official names and pictures of most valuable cultural heritage sites of the Russian Federation nations or the world cultural or natural heritage sites as well as to the pictures of the cultural valuables kept in collections, collected writings and funds, if a registration is sought in the name of the persons who are not their owners, without consent of the owners or persons authorized by the owners for such designations registration as trademarks.
On this subclause the criteria of interest are very similar to the criteria described in clause 2 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF. There can be distinguished the bodies issuing permits instead of governmental organizations – public ones. On the whole the criteria are identical.
Let me provide an example from the practice.
Mongolian entrepreneur Bat-Ulzii Tsendkhuu registered trademark Ogedei Khaan No. 379409 comprising the picture of a famous Mongolian khan.
Russian company Profit-S LLC that desired to use a similar designation and to register it in its name, addressed to the National museum of the imperial palace Gugun (China) where the single picture of Ogedei Khaan is kept. A trademark copies completely the picture kept at the museum and being an object of the mondial cultural heritage, what is witnessed by the respective publications.
Profit-S got the museum's consent for registration of Ogedei Khaan's picture as a trademark in the RF territory and filed an objection against opertion of trademark Ogedei Khaan No. 379409. Rospatent dismissed the objection having suggested the Russian company Profit-S LLC as the person not concerned even despite an availability of a consent for registration.
From Rospatent's decision dd. 19.07.2013. No. 2008705135/50
It should be also noted that a person who filed an objection had not provided, according to clause 2 of article 1513 of the Code, any rationales of his/her interest in contestation of legal protection granting to this trademark on a ground stipulated by clause 4 of article 1483 of the Code. So, for example, a person who has filed an objection is not an authorized person of the National museum of the imperial palace Gugunin China. In connection therewith PROFIT-S LLC has not proved that it is that person whose rights can be touched upon by the legal protection granting to a disputable mark under evidence No. 379409 on the grounds of clause 4 of article 1483 of the Code.
Clause 5 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF. According to the international treaty of the Russian Federation, no state registration is allowed of designations as trademarks that represent or contain the elements that are protected in one of the governments – participants of this international treaty, as the designations making it possible to identify wines or alcoholic beverages as those originating from its territory (produced within the boundaries of a geographic area of this government) and having a special quality, reputation or other characteristics that are determined mainly by their origin, if a trademark is meant for designation of wines or alcoholic beverages that don't originate from the territory of this geographic area.
Persons interested in the rights termination for a trademark on this criterion can be the persons who produce or sell wines and/or alcoholic beverages in the territory of a geographic area, which name is concordant to a disputable trademark. The criteria of interest on this ground are partially similar to the criteria of interest on clause 1 of article 1483 as to stating of a place of goods manufacture or location of a manufacturer. But unlike clause 1 of article 1483, in this case the known designations, for example Cognac, Champagne and others will have the grounds for contestation.
Clause 6 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF. Designations that are identical or confusingly similar to the following, can not be registered as trademarks:
1) trademarks of other persons requested for registration (article 1492) in relation to the homogeneous goods and having an earlier priority unless an application for state registration of a trademark is withdrawn or recognized withdrawn;
2) trademarks of other persons protected in the Russian Federation, including according to the international treaty of the Russian Federation in relation to homogeneous goods and having an earlier priority;
3) trademarks of other persons recognized as generally known trademarks in the Russian Federation in the manner established by this Code, in relation to homogeneous goods.
Registration of a designation as a trademark in relation to homogeneous goods that is confusingly similar to any of the trademarks stated in this clause, is allowed only with consent of a right holder.
The criteria on this clause are probably the simplest ones for assessment. Persons who are interested in the rights termination for a trademark on this criterion are either right holders of the prior trademarks or the persons who filed an application for a trademark registration.
Clause 7 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF. Designations that are identical or confusingly similar to a name of place of the goods' origin protected according to this Code can not be registered as trademarks in relation to any goods, except for a case when such designation is included as a non-protectable element into a trademark registered in the name of a person having the exclusive right for such name, if a trademark registration is implemented in relation to the same goods, for which individualization a protected designation of origin is registered.
The criteria of interest on this ground are partially similar to the criteria of interest on subclauses 1 and 5 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF as to stating of a place of goods manufacture or place of a manufacturer location.
This article is similar to clause 5 article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF, but unlike foreign geographical denominations, this article states the Russian name of a place of the goods' origin. Persons who are interested in the rights termination for a trademark on this criterion can be the persons who possess of a right to use.
From Rospatent's decision dd. 03.09.2011 No. 2007721696/50 "A person who has filed an objection substantiates this conclusion by a confusing similarity of a disputable trademark ("Dagestan gold" No. 418054) with the name of the goods' place of origin "DAGESTAN" under evidence No. 106, which right to use belongs to a person who has filed an objection".
Clause 8 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF. "In relation to homogeneous goods those designations can't be registered as trademarks that are identical or confusingly similar to a commercial name or commercial designation (separate elements of such name or designation) protected in the Russian Federation or to a name of a selection invention registered in the State register of the protected selection inventions, the rights to which in the Russian Federation arose earlier in other persons than on a priority date of a registrable trademark".
Criteria on this clause, the same as in case with clause 6 are the simplest ones for assessment. Persons who are interested in the rights termination for a trademark on this criterion, shall be holders of commercial names, commercial designations, selection inventions.
Clause 9 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF. "The following designations that are identical to the following, can't be registered as trademarks:
1) name of a work of science, literature or piece of art, a character or quotation from such a work, piece of art or its fragment that is known in the Russian Federation as at an application filing date for state registration of a trademark (article 1492), without a right holder's consent, if the rights for a respective work arose earlier than on a priority date of a registrable trademark;
2) name (article 19), pseudonym ( clause 1 of article 1265) or a designation derivative of them, portrait or facsimile that is well-known in the Russian Federation as at an application filing date of a person, without consent of this person or his/her successor;
3) industrial sample, conformity mark, the rights to which arose earlier than on a priority date of a registrable trademark".
To discuss and determine the criteria of interest, it is necessary to divide this clause into two parts. With subclause 1 and 3 everything is again simple enough: an applicant shall be a right holder of the rights for a work specified in this clause (a part of work), character, promo-sample. Ownership of the right of the author's proprietary rights is regulated by several articles of the Civil Code of RF. And even if within the framework of an objection consideration there arises a dispute on a right for a disputable designation, it does not reject an applicant's interest who has filed an objection on this criterion, but rather it confirms it.
But an interest assessment on subclause 2 of this norm (as well as use of this norm) has turned out to be rather complex for the Russian practice.
Complexities occur due to availability in this norm of the words "… or its successor" and "certain" contradiction (and/or inconsistency) of this norm with the provisions of article 150, 1112, 1228 of the Civil Code of RF.
In accordance with article 150 of the Civil Code of RF "a citizen's name, authorship, other intangible benefits owned by a citizen since birth or by virtue of the law are inalienable and non-assignable otherwise.
In cases and in the manner that are stipulated by the law, intangible benefits that belonged to the deceased, can be protected by other persons.
In accordance with article 1112 of the Civil Code of RF, the inheritance composition comprises things, other property, including the proprietary rights and duties that belonged to a testator as at a day of inheritance opening.
Rights and duties inextricably connected with a testator's personality, in particular … rights and duties which transfer under procedure of inheritance are not allowed by this Code or by other laws are not included into the inheritance composition.
Personal non-proprietary rights and other intangible benefits don't form a part of inheritance.
In accordance with article 1228 of the Civil Code of RF, the right of authorship, the right for a name and other personal non-proprietary rights of an author are inalienable and non-assignable.
Despite these norms of the legislation, both RF Law "Concerning trademarks" and the 4th part of the Civil Code of RF contained and contain this provision to the effect that disposal by the "personal non-proprietary right" is implemented by such person's successors. Maybe either a law-maker will amend this norm of subclause 2 of clause 9 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF or anybody will dispute this provision at the Constitutional Court.
Meanwhile the practice exists in such a way that it is enough to be a relative of a famous person for an interest of a trademark contestation under subclause 2 of clause 9 of article 1483. However "to be a relative" – does not warranty a disputable mark cancellation.
Also, beside a problem of establishment of a successor status under the law that was in force as at a date of inheritance creation, there also exists a problem of a quantity of successors whose consent is needed. If there are, for example, 5 successors, is a consent for a trademark registration required from all five successors or a consent from any one successor is enough? There are not so many disputes on this clause, so each case can be resolved individually.
Clause 10 of article 1483 of the Civil Code of RF. "On the grounds stipulated in this article, no legal protection is granted either to the designations recognized as the trademarks according to the international treaties of the Russian Federation".
This criterion gives a reference to the international treaties, in particular to the Madrid system, addressing the owners of any international rights to the Russian rights, by virtue whereof everything that has been said above on the previous 9 clauses, extends automatically to the RF obligations for the international treaties.
On the whole, an assessment of an applicant's interest in a trademark contestation is rather strongly associated with a result of a trademark contestation. When confirming his/her interest, an applicant simplifies significantly a result adoption needed by him/her in a number of instances.
In connection with the requirements of the laws on a necessity of an applicant's interest, the administration of the law will develop and, maybe will observe the above mentioned provisions, and maybe in some cases it will be changed.
Original article was published in "Journal of the Intellectual Property Rights Court", No. 5, September of 2014, page 42-50