The Rospatent refused to register the client's trademark because Multispace is a widely used term that lacks distinctiveness. We conducted a survey and proved that the vast majority of consumers perceived the word as fancy. The Chamber of Patent Appeals upheld our objection. Multispace is now a registered brand of our client INEX, which builds, sells and rents out new office formats under this name.

An interesting case, handled by our firm, has come to an end on appeal. We know that if a patent is declared invalid by the Chamber of Patent Disputes, this entails a review under new circumstances of judicial acts for the recovery of compensation for infringement of that patent. What happens if a patent is invalidated but compensation for infringement was previously paid not by court order but by an out-of-court settlement agreement? The courts of two instances have ruled that the compensation in such a situation is non-refundable. Details can be found in ruling No. 09AP-10918/2022 of 9ААС.

Kommersant published its annual survey of the Russian legal market. Our firm was ranked in two practices "Intellectual Property. Advice" and "Intellectual Property. Dispute Resolution". Yulia Karapetyan addressed the readers with an editorial entitled "Tango over the abyss", in which she said that despite the departure of most foreign law firms from the market, they all retained their positions in the current ranking out of a sense of deep respect and for historical memory.

The Presidium of the Court of Intellectual Rights upheld our Alltime appeal in case no. CIP-707/2021 and adopted a new judicial act. The decision to suspend the dispute before the Rospatent Chamber pending the hearing of case no. CIP-259/2021 was challenged. This is the first known practice of application of Clause 34 of the new CIP Rules, which is starting to be used by Rospatent as a new tool for delaying the dispute and evading the fulfillment of its obligations within a reasonable time. The essence of the case is that the client first filed a trademark opposition with the Chamber under clauses 3 and 6. of Art. 1483 OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE. After that, the client filed a complaint to the IPC under Articles 14.4, 14.8 of the Federal Law on Protection of Competition regarding the same trade mark of Uber. At the right holder's request, the dispute before the Chamber was suspended pending consideration of the case by the Court. We challenged the decision to suspend in the CIP, the first instance agreed with Rospatent and Sberbank, but the Presidium of the CIP took a new judicial act and ordered Rospatent to consider the objection.

The Intellectual Rights Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts in case No. A40-244035/2020, confirmed the confusion of the trademarks "Varnitsa" and "Česká Varnitsa", denied the defendants to reduce compensation, recovered over 6 million rubles in total from the three respondents, including 5 million rubles from the producer of beer "Česká Varnitsa" of the beer mill KRIM.

The Intellectual Rights Court upheld Rospatent's conclusion that the client's invention met all the criteria for patentability. In case No. SIP-291/2020, seven hearings were held and an expert examination was appointed. As a result, the client's patent was upheld and the opposing party was charged with the legal costs of representation.

The 9th Arbitrazh Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision to transfer the rights to administer the domains LUNDA.SU and LUNDA.RF to the client (Case No. A41-85820/2019). Interim measures were taken in relation to the domains as part of the dispute; the issue of securing the claim was considered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Kommersant publishing house has published its annual survey of the Russian legal market. The firm is noted in two practices:
intellectual property litigation and intellectual property law advice.

On 12 November 2020, Dmitry Shchedrin, Managing Partner of the firm, will make a presentation at the II International Scientific and Practical Conference "Intellectual Rights: Challenges of the 21st Century". The topic of the presentation is "Procedure and consequences of amendments to the claims during the consideration of an opposition to the grant of a patent"ю

The Supreme Court upheld an appeal filed by the client of Shchedriny & Partners against the refusal to grant interim measures in a domain dispute (Case No. A41-85820/2019).
The practice established by the firm's lawyers should influence lower courts to take interim measures in trademark protection cases more frequently, which would allow for a more effective fight against cybersquatters.

Case No. A40-23030/2019 was upheld by the appeal court. The client's competitor was charged with compensation for infringement of a utility model. It was found that the defendant had the burden of proof under Article 1359 § 6 of the Russian Civil Code. The existence at the time of the dispute of a supply agreement between the parties was not sufficient. In order to justify the absence of infringement, the defendant had to prove that the disputed product had been delivered, which was not the case in the present dispute.

Shchedriny & Partners is again included in the Pravo.ru-300 rating.
Due to a large number of interesting projects, our company has risen in the ranking and is now in Group 3 for Intellectual Property.

Dmitry Schedrin, Managing Partner of the firm, participated in the annual conference of patent attorneys where he delivered a report entitled "On the motives of paragraph 3 of paragraph 169 of the Resolution No.10 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 23.04.19. Correlation of general and special prohibitions against unfair competition with reference to Articles 14.4, 14.6 and 14.8 of the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition".

The Intellectual Rights Court upheld the judicial acts in case No. A40-222169/18. The defendant's actions were found to be an infringement of the client's trademark and trade name rights and an act of unfair competition. The defendant was ordered to pay compensation for infringement of the exclusive rights to the trademark.

The annual forum is organised by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (CCI RF). The round table was moderated by Dmitry Shchedrin (Managing Partner at Shchedrin & Partners) and Egor Svechnikov (Head of Antitrust Practice at KPMG Law Russia & CIS).

Reports were heard:

• Anton Subbot "When a rightsholder's refusal to grant consent to parallel imports may be considered as unfair competition"
• Sklyarova Yana "FAS Russia's initiative to legalise parallel imports in the context of the Russian Constitutional Court ruling of 13.02.2018 No. 8-P"
• Zakharov German "Technology Transfer and Data Access: The New Antitrust Reality"
• Oleksiy Polishchuk "Antitrust Compliance in the Protection of Intellectual Property"
• Kirill Mityagin "Disputable Issues of Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction in Trademark Registration Unfair Competition Cases"
• Dmitry Shchedrin "Ways of protecting the rights of the holder of a simple trademark licence in relation to the Civil Code and the Law on Protection of Competition"
• Labzin Maxim "Protection against unfair competition in the form of imitation of appearance and its relation to legal protection of intellectual property"
• Egor Svechnikov "Relationship between general and individual special prohibitions on unfair competition"

Dear colleagues,
we invite you to participate in the section "Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law" at the XII International Forum "Intellectual Property - XXI Century".
Participation is free of charge, subject to registration!
24 April 2019, 10:00-13:00, round table 7

On 14 November, the Intellectual Rights Court upheld judicial acts in case No. A40-40-40704/2017. The opponent was charged with 500,000 roubles in compensation for infringement of the client's exclusive right to the industrial design; the opponent's counterclaim for recognition of the right of post-use was dismissed.
On 21 November, the court upheld the ruling of the court of appeal in case A40-245880/2016. The opponent's claim for RUB 5m for protection of its utility model right was dismissed in full.

On November 21, a new composition of the Intellectual Property Council of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation was approved, and the representation of businesses and law firms in the Council was expanded.
The council was created in order to form, preserve and develop the intellectual potential of domestic entrepreneurship on the basis of the unified Concept of the state policy in the field of protection of intellectual property rights and involvement of the results of intellectual activity into the economic turnover, as well as to create the necessary conditions for providing the domestic economy with highly qualified specialists in the field of intellectual property management.
The new composition of the Council is designed to intensify work on the law-making and information and communication activities in Russia and the CIS countries.
Dmitry Shchedrin plans to concentrate on lawmaking in the Intellectual Property Management and Commercialization of Intellectual Property for Development of Innovative Economy in Russia.

For almost two years we have been representing the interests of Ocher Machine-Building Plant, one of the oldest enterprises in the Western Urals, in case No. A40-245880/2016 concerning protection of a utility model. We held 14 hearings in first and appellate instances and conducted two forensic examinations. On appeal, we obtained a re-examination and overturned the trial court's decision. The opponents' claim for compensation of 5 million roubles was dismissed in full.

Partners D.M. Schedrin and A.G. Kurashko and senior associate Y.M. Bogomolov took part in the open session of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Intellectual Property Court at the Congress Centre of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry during the 11th International Forum "Intellectual Property - XXI Century".

The Moscow Region Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service found the opponent to have violated Article 14.6 of the Federal Law on Protection of Competition. It was helped by a court ruling which came into force and declared the opponent's actions in illegally using the trademarks of APZ Rotor JSC's client DIVA to be an act of unfair competition.

Shchedrins & Partners acted for Astra in the Moscow Arbitrazh Court in case № A40-40704/2017. The court recognised infringement of the client's rights to its industrial design and recovered RUB 500,000 in compensation. The defendant's counterclaim for recognition of post-use rights was dismissed. In the course of the case, the defendant applied to the Chamber of Patent Disputes for an opposition to the granting of the patent, but the opponents also received a rejection from Rospatent

Shchedrins & Partners" was ranked in the top 30 in terms of intellectual property in the "Pravo-300" ranking. According to Boris Boltyansky, editor-in-chief of PRAVO.ru, the 2017 ranking was the eighth in a row and the most extensive in its history.

In the interests of the principal, APZ Rotor JSC, the lawyers of Schedrines & Partners obtained a judgment prohibiting the competitors from using the designation "DIVA" and recovering compensation of 500,000 roubles from the defendants for infringement of the exclusive rights to two trademarks of APZ Rotor JSC.

In the interests of the principal Athanasius Private Brewery, the Court of Appeal (Intellectual Rights Court) overturned an unlawful abstract ban on the use of the designation "Nashe Hunt!" despite arguments by the plaintiff (Heineken) that the courts of first and appellate jurisdiction had justified the non-proprietary claim.

The decision of Rospatent to invalidate the decision of the Polet Watch Factory was invalidated in the interests of the principal of Shchedriny & Partners.
The Intellectual Rights Court invalidated the decision of Rospatent to refuse to satisfy the opposition to the decision to refuse the state registration of the trademark because the opposition of the factory was examined in the absence of its representative and in the absence of evidence of its proper notification of the time and place of its consideration.

Shchedriny & Partners defends the interests of Afanasiy Private Brewery in the court of cassation in the case for protection of the exclusive right to the trademark OHOTA

In the interests of Watch Factory Polet Ltd, the principal of the firm Shchedriny & Partners, the Intellectual Rights Court upheld the applications to terminate registration of the Polet (Poljot) trademark series due to its non-use

In the interests of the principal Shchedrins & Partners a settlement agreement was reached in the Intellectual Rights Court in a case for termination of an exclusive right to a trademark due to non-use. The exclusive right to the trademark of the principal (defendant) was retained, substantial compensation was received in exchange for the provision of a letter of consent to the registration of the plaintiff's trademark