Defendant Agrees to Stop Infringement of SURPRISE Trademark on Chocolate Eggs

Oct 21 2016

On September 21, 2016 the Arbitration Court of Moscow City satisfied in full the claims of Ferrero S.p.A. to a manufacturer of chocolate eggs using on their packagings the mark “SURPRISE” in confusing manner. The plaintiff pleaded before the court to prohibit to manufacturer manufacturing of goods in the packaging in dispute, to make the manufacturer to delete and destroy such packagings and to pay monetary compensation. The Defendant accepted the claims in full, therefore the court approved the acceptance of the claims and ruled in favour of the Plaintiff. The case was also interesting by the fact that the product was manufactured in Russia but for Belorussian retailer, still mere manufacturing was enough to acknowledge infringement.  The Plaintiff was represented by Irina Ozolina, Senior Lawyer of Sojuzpatent. 

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

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

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

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


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