Managing Partner / Patent Attorney of the Russian Federation / Eurasian Patent Attorney
Zuykov and Partners defended the interests of METROPOLIS shopping center in the Intellectual Property Court Presidium
LLC Kubik has turned to the lawyers of Zuykov and Partners for help. The company had filed an application for the registration of the trademarks “МЕТРОПОЛИС” and “METROPOLIS” for services, including for the services stipulated by the 39th and 41st classes of the ICGS. The representatives of Rospatent indicated to an impossibility of the registration, in particular, due to the fact that LLC Company “Metropolis” already held the similar trademark registered for the similar classes of the ICGS.
While analyzing in detail the activities of the organization, which had the means of individualization, the doubts about the use of the trademark arose. This was the reason, why the representatives of Kubik filed a statement of claim to the court for an early termination of the legal protection of the trademark due to its not-use. The lawyers of Zuykov and Partners managed to prove the interest of the plaintiff in filing the statement of claim and to confirm the intentions of LLC Kubik to use the trademarks after the grant of the legal protection.
Based on the results of the consideration of the statement of claim, the court made a decision to satisfy partially the claims and on the early termination of the protection of the trademark held by LLC Company “Metropolis” in respect of the services of the 36th class of the ICGS due to the non-use.
The defendant decided to appeal against the decision of the first-instance court and filed a cassation petition. In support of their position, the representatives of the company stated on the nonconformity of the court’s findings to the actual circumstances of the case and the proofs available in the case.
The lawyers of Zuykov and Partners highlighted the following theses in support of the position of the plaintiff in their reply submitted to the petition:
- The arguments of the cassation petition of the defendant were aimed at the revaluation of the proofs and they could not serve as a basis for the cancellation of the decision of the first-instance court.
- The defendant’s argument on the discrepancy of the court’s findings with the actual circumstances, the proofs available in the case, was insolvent.
During the judicial proceedings, the representatives of Zuykov and Partners justified in detail their position and convinced the Court of Cassation in the insolvency of the arguments of LLC Company “Metropolis,” in connection with which the Intellectual Property Court Presidium upheld the decision of the first-instance court.