ARTICLE
10 September 2017

The Trisolen Case – A Lesson In Enforcement Against Trademark Infringement

FZ
Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, PC
Contributor
Many of the world's most celebrated brands and content providers rely on Fross Zelnick to protect their valuable intellectual property assets. Consistently recognized as one of the premier IP firms, our lawyers focus exclusively on trademark, copyright, design patent, and related areas involving strategy, registration, enforcement, litigation, and transactions in the U.S. and globally.
While one could question the reasoning of this case, it has so far been upheld by the higher courts.
Russian Federation Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

No. 301-Aд17-4305

On May 15, 2017, the Supreme Court (highest court) of the Russian Federation upheld a decision of the Russian IP court (No. A43-10065/2016) which, at first glance, appears to undermine a trademark owner's ability to enforce its marks against unauthorized third-party uses.

The case concerns a Customs seizure of goods imported into the Russian Federation bearing the TRISOLEN mark. The goods were manufactured and sold by Leuna Eurokkomerz GmbH, a German company that owned the mark in Germany. A Russian company, MVT Trade LLC ("MVT"), that owns a Russian Federation registration for ТРИЗОЛЕН (TRIZOLEN in Cyrillic), objected to such import on the ground that TRISOLEN was confusingly similar to its ТРИЗОЛЕН mark. MVT succeeded in the first instance and appellate courts.

In a decision issued on February 9, 2017, however, the IP Court reversed, holding that the importation of goods into Russia bearing a trademark duly registered in the manufacturer's country of origin could not constitute trademark infringement in Russia. While this decision, on its face, seems to immunize such importation against infringement of a prior trademark registered in the Russian Federation, it must be noted that the case involved a customs seizure and was brought under the Code of Administrative Offenses ("COAO"), The IP Court, based on a 2009 ruling of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court, found that the relevant Art. 14.10 of the COAO (governing trademark offenses) was not applicable to cases where imported goods bear a trademark duly registered by the manufacturer in the country of origin. While one could question the reasoning of this case, it has so far been upheld by the higher courts.

In a different parallel civil trademark infringement case, MVT prevailed before the IP Court (No. A43-26595-2015), a case that the Supreme Court refused to hear, making the IP Court decision final. The lesson to be learned, at least for now, is that in similar cases, trademark owners appear better off enforcing their marks through civil lawsuits rather than Customs/COAO procedures.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

ARTICLE
10 September 2017

The Trisolen Case – A Lesson In Enforcement Against Trademark Infringement

Russian Federation Intellectual Property
Contributor
Many of the world's most celebrated brands and content providers rely on Fross Zelnick to protect their valuable intellectual property assets. Consistently recognized as one of the premier IP firms, our lawyers focus exclusively on trademark, copyright, design patent, and related areas involving strategy, registration, enforcement, litigation, and transactions in the U.S. and globally.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More