Zuykov and partners defended the Rinpharm LLC interests in the presidium of the Intellectual Property Court
On May 30, 2022, the presidium of the Intellectual Property Rights Court considered the cassation complaints of the individual entrepreneur Valentinov B.G. and Naumova E.M., filed against the decision of the Court for Intellectual Property Rights dated February 7, 2022, in case No. SIP-908/2021 to invalidate the decision of the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent).
Rinfarm LLC, represented by Zuykov and Partners, participated in the case as a third party that did not file independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute, acting on the side of Rospatent.
The main arguments of the applicants of the cassation complaints boiled down to the fact that the decision of the court of the first instance is subject to cancellation on unconditional grounds, in connection with the failure to involve E.M. Naumova, indicated as the co-author of the image underlying the disputed trademark, in the case. The cashiers also pointed out that the court had come to an erroneous conclusion, not recognizing as proven the fact that Valentinov B.G. the exclusive right to the disputed image, and not seeing in the actions of Rinpharm LLC signs of an act of unfair competition, in connection with the registration in his name of a designation identical to the trademark that previously belonged to Valentinov B.G.
The lawyers of Zuykov and Partners, representing the interests of Rinpharm LLC, did not agree with the arguments of the applicants of the cassation complaints and prepared motivated responses to them.
The Court of Cassation, having assessed the arguments of Valentinov B.T. and Naumova E.M., set out in the cassation appeals, as well as the objections of Rinfarm LLC and Rospatent, did not find grounds for canceling the decision of the court of the first instance.
Rejecting the arguments of Naumova E.M. that the decision of the court of the first instance was made on her rights and obligations, the presidium of the Intellectual Property Rights Court indicated that the court did not draw conclusions discrediting her copyright, and the presence in the judicial act during the presentation and evaluation of the arguments and objections of those participating in the case persons, analysis of evidence in the case of references to the names of Naumova E.M. does not in itself give this person the right to appeal against the decision of the court of the first instance adopted in the present case in the absence of grounds provided for by Article 42 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, the court of cassation did not see grounds for concluding that the conclusions of the court of the first instance were inconsistent with the materials of the case or that the examination of evidence that the court analyzed and evaluated in full in order to verify the compliance of the disputed decision of Rospatent with the provisions of subparagraph 1 paragraph 9 of Article 1483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. No violations were found in the court’s conclusion on the legality of the actions of the Deputy Head of Rospatent to reject the conclusion of the Board of the Chamber for Patent Disputes dated February 8, 2021, against granting legal protection to the disputed trademark.
At the same time, rejecting the arguments of Valentinov B.T. on the presence in the actions of Rinpharm LLC of signs of an act of unfair competition, expressed in the registration of a trademark in its name, the Presidium of the Court for Intellectual Property Rights took into account the presence of a legitimate purpose for the trademark owner in its registration, confirmed by the fact that the drug, the packaging of which is marked This means of individualization is a medicinal product of Chinese traditional medicine, and the Chinese god of longevity Shouxin, symbolizing the thousand-year experience of Chinese medicine, is depicted on the pictorial element of the disputed trademark.
Based on the results of consideration of cassation appeals, the Presidium of the Court for Intellectual Property Rights decided to satisfy the complaint of Valentinov B.G. refuse, proceedings on appeal Naumova E.M.
Thus, the decision of Rospatent was upheld, and the legal protection of the trademark of Rinfarm LLC continues to operate.