Zuykov and partners defended the interests of plaintiff in case of using an abbreviated company name

The Arbitration Court of the Kemerovo Region considered case No. A27-2605/2023 on the claim of Kiselevsky Mining Equipment Plant LLC (Kiselevsk, Kemerovo Region) against Kuznetsk Mining Equipment Plant LLC (Prokopyevsk, Kemerovo Region) regarding the obligation to stop using the abbreviated company name (KZGO LLC) when carrying out a number of activities (All-Russian classifier of types of economic activity, OKVED).

In this case, the interests of the plaintiff were represented by the company Zuykov and partners.

During the consideration of the case, the Kuznetsk plant did not recognize the stated requirements, pointing out that the verbal element “KZGO” does not constitute an indication of the nature and type of activity of the company, and therefore cannot carry out an individualizing function and be the subject of legal protection. According to the defendant, there is only an abbreviation of the full name of the legal entity, which is a generally accepted practice. In addition, according to the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, the defendant does not have part of the OKVED codes indicated by the plaintiff in the pleading part of the claim.

When making claims for protection of the exclusive right to a company name, the plaintiff must prove:

• inclusion of the plaintiff’s business name in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities earlier than the defendant,
• the fact that the defendant’s company name is confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s company name,
• the fact that the defendant uses the disputed brand name in relation to similar activities carried out by the copyright holder.

Kiselevsky Mining Equipment Plant LLC was registered in 2015, while Kuznetsk Mining Equipment Plant LLC was registered in 2017, while information about the renaming of the legal entity was accepted in 2020; legal entities have identical abbreviated names - LLC "KZGO" and carry out similar types of activities. In paragraph 151 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 23, 2019 No. 10 “On the application of part four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation” it is explained that, by virtue of paragraph 3 of Article 1474 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the exclusive right to the corporate name of a legal entity, earlier than another included in The Unified State Register of Legal Entities, regardless of which legal entity began the relevant activity first. Thus, the exclusive right to the corresponding abbreviated company name arose earlier with the plaintiff.

Let us note that the actual implementation by both parties of disputed types of economic activity is included in the subject of proof in the case. He did not provide evidence that the defendant does not carry out any types of activities specified in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. And the presence in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities of a certain type of activity according to OKVED does not indicate that the organization does not carry out other activities, since the purpose of assigning OKVED codes is accounting purposes.

Moreover, it is essential for the consideration of the case to establish the circumstances of the actual implementation by both parties of disputed types of economic activities, and not the inclusion or non-inclusion of these types of activities in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, since it is the actual implementation of similar types of activities that creates a real threat of mixing of different producers and suppliers of goods (services) in the eyes of the consumer. It is noted that the activities of the plaintiff and defendant consist of the production, sale and after-sales service of machinery and equipment for mining and construction. This fact is confirmed not only by information from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, but also by documents presented in the case materials on the actual activities of the plaintiff and defendant.

Taking into account the above, the Arbitration Court of the Kemerovo Region made a decision dated 09/06/2023 to satisfy the plaintiff’s claims in full.