News

Oct 13 2011
August 25, 2011 the Moscow City Arbitrazh Court ruled in favor of our client - LLC "Chemical resource - and energy-saving technology"

August 25, 2011 the Moscow City Arbitrazh Court ruled in favor of our client - LLC "Chemical resource - and energy-saving technology" in trademark RF 409019

Oct 13 2011
The Moscow City Arbitrazh Court ruled in favor of our client Seiko Epson Corporation (Japan)

July 25, 2011 the Moscow City Arbitrazh Court ruled in favor of our client Seiko Epson Corporation (Japan) in patent infringement case on Russian patent 2344043 (container for printing material). The Judge decided to destroy the counterfeit printer cartridges distributed in Russia by Defendant -IKS-Technology and to collect damages.

Oct 13 2011
August 11, 2010 the Chamber for the Patent Disputes of the Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property

August 11, 2010 the Chamber for the Patent Disputes of the Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property considered opposition against validity in the territory of the Russian Federation of Eurasian patent 00891 “dosing inhaler for propionate of fluticasone” and opposition against validity in the territory of the Russian Federation of Eurasian patent 00892 “dosing inhaler for salmeterol”. The Board Meeting of the Chamber for the Patent Disputes took a decision in favor of Sojuzpatent’s client – LLC Laicenteck, satisfying the opposition and recognizing Eurasian patents 00891 and 00892 completely invalid in the territory of the Russian Federation.

Oct 13 2011
August 15, 2011 the Appeal Arbitration Court for Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of our client Seiko Epson Corporation (Japan) in patent infringement case on Russian patent 2336175 and affirmed the Decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court as of June 1, 2011 according to which the Court decided to destroy the counterfeit printer cartridges distributed in Russia by Defendant - IKS-Technology and to collect damages. August 15, 2011 the Appeal Arbitration Court for Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of our client Seiko Epson Corporation (Japan) in patent infringement case on Russian patent 2336175 and affirmed the Decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court as of June 1, 2011 according to which the Court decided to destroy the counterfeit printer cartridges distributed in Russia by Defendant - IKS-Technology and to collect damages.
Jul 8 2011
June 1, 2011 Moscow City Arbitrazh Court ruled in favor of our client Seiko Epson Corp. (Japan) in patent infringement case on Russian patent 2336175 (Printing Cartridge). The Judge decided to destroy the counterfeit printer cartridge distributed in Russia by defendant IKS-Technology and to collect damages June 1, 2011 Moscow City Arbitrazh Court ruled in favor of our client Seiko Epson Corp. (Japan) in patent infringement case on Russian patent 2336175 (Printing Cartridge). The Judge decided to destroy the counterfeit printer cartridge distributed in Russia by defendant IKS-Technology and to collect damages
Jul 8 2011
June 26, 2011 Federal Arbitrazh Court for Moscow District ruled in favor of our Client Shell B.V. (Netherlands) and confirmed the correctness of previous decision of invalidation of Eurasian patent 2780 of Translang Technologies (Canada) in Russia June 26, 2011 Federal Arbitrazh Court for Moscow District ruled in favor of our Client Shell B.V. (Netherlands) and confirmed the correctness of previous decision of invalidation of Eurasian patent 2780 of Translang Technologies (Canada) in Russia
Jul 8 2011
July 6, 2011 Arbitrazh Court of Vladimirsky region ruled in favor of our client – Ferrero Group (Italy) in the case of infringement of trademark “Raffaello” by Russian Ice-cream producer RosFrost and ruled to destroy counterfeit packages of ice-cream and collect 2 million roubles. July 6, 2011 Arbitrazh Court of Vladimirsky region ruled in favor of our client – Ferrero Group (Italy) in the case of infringement of trademark “Raffaello” by Russian Ice-cream producer RosFrost and ruled to destroy counterfeit packages of ice-cream and collect 2 million roubles.
Jul 8 2011
May 26, 2011 the Russian National Group of AIPPI held its bi-annual congress. Dr.Aleksey Zalesov, Head of Litigation practice of Sojuzpatent Ltd. has been re-elected as President of the Group. May 26, 2011 the Russian National Group of AIPPI held its bi-annual congress. Dr.Aleksey Zalesov, Head of Litigation practice of Sojuzpatent Ltd. has been re-elected as President of the Group.
Jul 8 2011
April 12, 2011 WIPO regional seminar for the CIS countries took place in Bishkek (Kirgizstan republic). Dr.Zalesov of Sojuzpatent Ltd. presented a topic “Client-attorney privilege in IP in Russia and abroad”. April 12, 2011 WIPO regional seminar for the CIS countries took place in Bishkek (Kirgizstan republic). Dr.Zalesov of Sojuzpatent Ltd. presented a topic “Client-attorney privilege in IP in Russia and abroad”.
Jul 8 2011
May 12, 2011 Sojuzpatent Ltd. organized IP seminar in Madrid (Spain) under the auspices of the Russia technology development exhibition (Ferria de Madrid) May 12, 2011 Sojuzpatent Ltd. organized IP seminar in Madrid (Spain) under the auspices of the Russia technology development exhibition (Ferria de Madrid)
Jul 8 2011
April 25, 2011 the annual meeting of the Russian Chamber of patent attorneys took place. Patent attorneys of Sojuzpatent Ltd. has been elected to the Board of organization. April 25, 2011 the annual meeting of the Russian Chamber of patent attorneys took place. Patent attorneys of Sojuzpatent Ltd. has been elected to the Board of organization.
Jun 30 2011
Magazine “Industrial property” #1, 2011 published an article “Reviewing of claims in Chamber for Patent Disputes as reexamination of patentability of industrial property objects” written by Aleksey Zalesov.
Jun 30 2011
June 23, 2011 the Moscow Arbitration Court took a decision in favor of Sojuzpatent’s client GmbH. «Liqui-Moly Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung» (Germany) (the Plaintiff). By the mentioned decision the Court fully satisfied the claims of GmbH. «Liqui-Moly Gesell-schaft mit beschrankter Haftung» and ruled: - to forbid Closed Joint Stock Company "Obninskorgsintez" to use the designation «SINTOIL» which is similar to a degree of confusion with the Plaintiff’s trademark (international registration number 767 230) on the packaging of motor oils while manufacturing, introducing into civil circulation and offering for sale; - to forbid Ltd. “Logo-Auto” to use the designation “SINTOIL” on the packages of motor oils during the sale; - to oblige “Obninskorgsintez” to destroy the packages of motor oils marked by designation “SINTOIL” at their own expense and to withdraw in favor of the Plaintiff compensation for the infringement of the exclusive rights for the trademark from both Defendants.
Jun 30 2011
23.06.2011 the Appeal Arbitration Court for Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Sojuzpatent’s client – a German company producing sport cars – and affirmed the decision of the Moscow Ar-bitration Court of April 20, 2011 according to which the Court ruled to make private entrepre-neur Chernus G.V. (the Defendant) answerable for the unlawful use of a trademark, to recover from the defendant compensation at the rate of 10 000 rubles, to confiscate the goods, which is the subject of an administrative offence, as well as to recover from the Defendant in favor of the Applicant (the Moscow customs) expenses for expert examination at the rate of 35 000 rubles.
Jun 30 2011
«Intellectual trends» magazine, 2, 2011 published and article “Overview of IP litigation” prepared by Sojuzpatent litigation team
Jun 6 2011
May 30, 2011 Arbitration Court of the Moscow District ruled in favor of Sojuzpatent’s client “GEDEON RICHTER NIRT” (Hungary). By the said Ruling the Court affirmed the Resolution of the Appeal Arbitration Court for Ninth Circuit as of February 14, 2011 and the Decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court as of October 20, 2011 according to which is rejected the claim to invalidate the Decision of RUPTO, by which the Eurasian patent No EA 008223 was invalidated. May 30, 2011 Arbitration Court of the Moscow District ruled in favor of Sojuzpatent’s client “GEDEON RICHTER NIRT” (Hungary). By the said Ruling the Court affirmed the Resolution of the Appeal Arbitration Court for Ninth Circuit as of February 14, 2011 and the Decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court as of October 20, 2011 according to which is rejected the claim to invalidate the Decision of RUPTO, by which the Eurasian patent No EA 008223 was invalidated.
Apr 5 2011
April 05, 2011 the Appeal Arbitration Court for Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Sojuzpatent’s client SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION (Japan) (Plaintiff) and affirmed the Decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court as of January 13, 2011 according to which the claims of SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION are fully satisfied and the Defendant (Ltd. “Iks-Technology”) is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff compensation in the amount of 1 000 000,00 rubles for the violation of the exclusive rights for the trademark “EPSON” (registration certificate No 162594) and to stop the violation of the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights, and the packages of goods marked by the designation “EPSON” should be withdrawn from the Defendant and destroyed at the expense thereof. April 05, 2011 the Appeal Arbitration Court for Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Sojuzpatent’s client SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION (Japan) (Plaintiff) and affirmed the Decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court as of January 13, 2011 according to which the claims of SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION are fully satisfied and the Defendant (Ltd. “Iks-Technology”) is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff compensation in the amount of 1 000 000,00 rubles for the violation of the exclusive rights for the trademark “EPSON” (registration certificate No 162594) and to stop the violation of the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights, and the packages of goods marked by the designation “EPSON” should be withdrawn from the Defendant and destroyed at the expense thereof.
Mar 24 2011
March 24, 2011 the Moscow Arbitration Court took a decision in favor of Sojuzpatent’s client Ltd. “Cariba” (Defendant). By the said Decision Moscow Arbitration Court rejected the claims of Closed Joint Stock Company “HELP” (Plaintiff) of obliging Ltd. "Cariba” to pay to the Plaintiff compensation in the amount of 3 100 000,00 rubles and of stopping use the verbal designation “TIKIBAR” and graphic designation , similar to the degree of confusion with the Plaintiff’s trademarks registration certificates No 383752 and No 382343. March 24, 2011 the Moscow Arbitration Court took a decision in favor of Sojuzpatent’s client Ltd. “Cariba” (Defendant). By the said Decision Moscow Arbitration Court rejected the claims of Closed Joint Stock Company “HELP” (Plaintiff) of obliging Ltd. "Cariba” to pay to the Plaintiff compensation in the amount of 3 100 000,00 rubles and of stopping use the verbal designation “TIKIBAR” and graphic designation , similar to the degree of confusion with the Plaintiff’s trademarks registration certificates No 383752 and No 382343.
Mar 13 2011
March 13, 2010 the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District ruled in favor of Sojuzpatent’s client BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED (USA) (Plaintiff). By the mentioned Ruling the Court dismissed the appeal of Ltd. “Fitora” and Ltd. “Inat-Pharma” (Defendants) and affirmed the Resolution of the Appeal Arbitration Court for Ninth Circuit as of December 7, 2010. By this Resolution of December 7, 2010 the Appeal Arbitration Court for Ninth Circuit satisfied the appeal of BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED and ruled: - to forbid the Defendants to use designations «ÎĘÎÂČŇ» č «OKOvit» which are similar to a degree of confusion with the Plaintiff’s trademark «OCUVITE» (registration certificate RF 174991); - to withdraw in favor of BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED compensation for the infringement of the exclusive rights for the trademark in the amount of 100 000,00 rubles; - to withdraw from the turnover and to destroy the packages of the goods marked by designations «ÎĘÎÂČŇ» and «OKOvit». March 13, 2010 the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District ruled in favor of Sojuzpatent’s client BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED (USA) (Plaintiff). By the mentioned Ruling the Court dismissed the appeal of Ltd. “Fitora” and Ltd. “Inat-Pharma” (Defendants) and affirmed the Resolution of the Appeal Arbitration Court for Ninth Circuit as of December 7, 2010. By this Resolution of December 7, 2010 the Appeal Arbitration Court for Ninth Circuit satisfied the appeal of BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED and ruled: - to forbid the Defendants to use designations «ÎĘÎÂČŇ» č «OKOvit» which are similar to a degree of confusion with the Plaintiff’s trademark «OCUVITE» (registration certificate RF 174991); - to withdraw in favor of BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED compensation for the infringement of the exclusive rights for the trademark in the amount of 100 000,00 rubles; - to withdraw from the turnover and to destroy the packages of the goods marked by designations «ÎĘÎÂČŇ» and «OKOvit».
Jan 27 2011
Journal “World Intellectual Property Review” (edition 2011) published article “Pros and Cons of Patent Litigation in Russia” by Dr. Zalesov. >>LINK<< Journal “World Intellectual Property Review” (edition 2011) published article “Pros and Cons of Patent Litigation in Russia” by Dr. Zalesov. >>LINK<<
Pages:  1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10    11    12    13  »

Legal address:
5/2, Il`inka str.,
Moscow, Russia, 109012

Post address:
h.13, b.5, Myasnitskaya str.
Moscow, Russia, 101000

Phones:
+7 (495) 221-88-80, 221-88-81

Faxes:
+7 (495) 221-88-85, 221-88-86

E-mail:
info@sojuzpatent.com

Company news
May 25 2017

Sojuzpatent’s team of ten professionals took part in the 139th INTA Annual Meeting in Barcelona, Spain. During the event, Sojuzpatent hosted a booth at the Convention Center.

Read more
Apr 28 2017

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to transfer the cassation appeal of the offender to the Judicial Board for Economic Disputes, thereby supporting the position of Sojuzpatent’s client - Renault S.A.S. (France)

Read more
Nov 29 2016

On November 28, 2016, the Presidium of the IP Court canceled the decision of the first instance in the case SIP-70/2016 and sent the case back for a new trial by a different panel of judges. The Presidium agreed with the arguments of Golden Lady Company S.p.A that the conclusions of the court of the first instance contradicted to the facts and case materials and that additional evidence, provided by the parties after administrative procedure, should be also taken into consideration by court. Also, the Presidium stated, that a Power of Attorney should clearly indicate the date when it is signed, and if a Notary just acknowledges the authentic signature, but does not confirm that this signature was put in his presence, the date of notarial certification cannot be the date of PoA. A PoA without a date is void. A power of attorney, having two different dates on it should be also considered void.

Read more

Read all news »