The brewery lost the court on infringement of the rights to the Makheev trademarks

The Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region has satisfied the claim of JSC "Essen Production AG" to LLC "30 Meridian". The court found that the defendant had violated the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the Makheev trademarks and the graphic element of the corporate logo, and also prohibited the use of the Bering designation and the controversial packaging of the defendant's alcoholic beverages. The court found that the packaging of alcoholic beverages copies the appearance of the Makheev trademark and is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of the company.

It is noted that the controversial design is used by the brewery exclusively on beer packaging. The organization does not produce or sell jams or other food products similar to the range of the Makheev brand.

Dmitry Pokhvalov, CEO of 30 Meridian, said that during production, the company uses images that may seem similar, but does not copy the design to the point of confusion, and intends to appeal the decision of the arbitration court. He also stressed that the company had not received any pre-trial claim or notification of the appointment of court sessions, which may indicate a violation of procedural rules.

Sergey Zuykov, a patent attorney and managing partner of Zuykov and partners, notes that the court has no obligation to appoint an expert examination when comparing a trademark and the designation used by the defendant. "The court can make a conclusion about the similarity to the point of confusion from the point of view of an ordinary consumer," he explains. According to the expert, Essen Production AG may file a claim for compensation for trademark infringement, since the violation has already been established by a court decision. However, Mr. Zuykov advises against rushing to file such a claim. "The court's decision, in my opinion, will either be changed or canceled. The court's decision is not motivated, there is no comparison of trademarks and designations, which, in fact, was used by the defendant," he believes.

According to the expert, it is also unclear what exactly the court forbade the defendant to use — only the design or directly the designation "Bering".

"The plaintiff owns the rights to the graphic image, as well as to the well-known trademark with the combined designation "Makheev". But at the same time, Essen Production AG does not own the rights to the Bering trademark, why the court forbade the use of the Bering designation is not clear," adds Mr. Zuykov. Thus, the defendant has quite a lot of chances to appeal this decision, including on the basis of procedural violations of the court of first instance, the expert concludes.

Source: Kommersant