The Arbitration Court prohibited the sale of the echosounders, the design of which had been reproducing the design of the echosounders of “Practitioner ER-6Pro2”

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region made a decision to prohibit the defendant, LLC “OPTIMA,” to use by way of introducing into civil law transactions the sensor design of the echosounder “CRAFT Echo 200 Ice”, which was identical to the model of the echosounder “Practitioner ER-6Pro2” being sold by the plaintiff LLC “PRAKTIK-NC.” The interests of the plaintiff LLC “PRAKTIK-NC” were represented by the lawyers of the company “Zuykov and Partners.&rdquo

As was evidenced by the materials of the case, the plaintiff and a number of authors had concluded a Commissioning Agreement, according to which the echosounder design was developed, and then exclusive rights to this object were alienated in favor of LLC “PRAKTIK-NC.”  Thus, the plaintiff became a sole right holder of the exclusive copyright to the design of the echosounder “Practitioner ER-6Pro2.”

During the judicial proceeding, the plaintiff’s representatives relied on the following arguments.  The defendant carried out an offer to sell via the Internet and the sale of the products of the model “Echosounder Portable CRAFT Echo 200 Ice,” the design of which was identical to the echosounder “Practitioner ER-6Pro2.”  The plaintiff had not grant the defendant the right to use the echosounder design. In this regard, LLC “PRAKTIK-NC” filed a statement of claim to stop the illegal actions, being carried out by LLC “OPTIMA.” The defendant did not provide any evidence that the plaintiff had granted it the rights to use the echosounder design.

In determining the violation of the plaintiff’s rights, the court, by a visual inspection of the echosounders, determined that the sensor design of the echosounder, being implemented by the defendant, reproduced the design of the plaintiff’s echosounder.  Comparable samples of the same shape, size, were visually made of identical materials and included the same components of the echosounders’ sensors. All this testified to the possibility that the consumer might get a misconception about the person manufacturing the echosounders, what would lead to confusion and create false associations about the relationship with the right holder of the design and, accordingly, about the specific quality of the products.

Taking into account the arguments and evidence submitted by the lawyers of the company “Zuykov and Partners,” and also taking into account the results of the visual comparison of the echosounders models, the court made a decision to satisfy the plaintiff's claims in full.