Zuykov and partners proved the defendant's innocence in an unfair competition case

The court reviewed the case filed by Vladimir Standard LLC and VLADFISH LLC against Businesstrust CJSC to recognize the latter’s actions in registering the Vladimir Standard trademark under Russian Federation Certificate No. 272428 as an act of unfair competition and abuse of law.

The company Zuykov and partners in this case represented the interests of the defendant, Businesstrust CJSC.

The trademark “Vladimir Standard”, according to Russian Federation Certificate No. 272428, was registered on July 26, 2004 in the name of Businesstrust in relation to goods of the 30th class of the ICGS. However, according to the Vladimir Standard and the VLADFISH companies, the actions of the Businesstrust company to acquire the exclusive right to the above trademark were an act of unfair competition.

In support of their position, the plaintiffs pointed out that the Vladimir Standard company is the owner of a series of trademarks that include the verbal element “Vladimir Standard” and have high distinctiveness. At the same time, the plaintiffs insisted that since 2000, the designation “Vladimir Standard” was used by a person affiliated with the plaintiffs to individualize goods of classes 29 and 30 of the ICGS (sausages, dumplings and other semi-finished meat products) and was known to consumers before the priority date disputed trademark.

In turn, the company Businesstrust noted that the case materials do not contain evidence confirming the fact of production and introduction into civil circulation by the plaintiffs or an affiliate of them of products under the designation “Vladimir Standard” and the acquisition by this designation of wide popularity among consumers before the priority date of the disputed trademark. The defendant also indicated that the evidence presented by the plaintiff is not based on objective data and refers to the period after the priority date of the disputed trademark, or it is not possible to determine its date.

Having established the relationship of connection between the affiliated person and the plaintiffs and, in connection with this, the latter’s interest in challenging the disputed trademark, the court, however, did not see from the case materials information about the direct delivery to the consumer of goods (dumplings, sausages) by the plaintiffs or a person affiliated with them products) using the corresponding designation, as well as the acquisition of fame by the disputed designation among consumers in relation to such products due to the actions of the plaintiffs or persons affiliated with them before the priority date of the disputed trademark.

In addition, the court noted that on the date the defendant filed an application for registration of the disputed trademark, the Vladimir Standard company did not exist as a legal entity, and in relation to the VLADFISH company, the case file contains no evidence of competitive relations with the defendant in the field of production and sales of goods of class 30 ICGS.

In the absence of evidence that the plaintiffs or affiliated (interrelated) persons carried out actions to introduce into civil circulation goods of the 30th class of the ICGS under the designation “Vladimir Standard” before the priority date of the disputed trademark, the Intellectual Rights Court indicated that there were no grounds for establishing facts of competition the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the defendant’s awareness of their use of the disputed designation, the intention and the very fact of causing harm to the plaintiffs or related persons by the defendant.

The court also did not agree with the plaintiffs’ argument about the defendant’s deliberate bad faith in acquiring and using the exclusive right to the disputed trademark in order to take advantage of unjustified advantages and cause harm to the plaintiffs, as well as the defendant’s knowledge of the fact of use of the disputed designation by the plaintiffs before the priority date of the disputed trademark, in view of absence of relevant evidence in the materials of this case. At the same time, the Intellectual Property Rights Court specifically noted that the goal is established taking into account the probability of an accidental coincidence (balance of probabilities).

Therefore, the Intellectual Property Rights Court's decision on July 5, 2024, in case № SIP-43/2023, denied the claims of Vladimir Standard and VLADFISH and did not recognize BusinessTrust's registration of the trademark as an act of unfair competition.