RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
29/12/2024
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
29 December 
1970 The 36-year civil war in Guatemala ended in reconciliation between the parties.
1970 Catherine II introduced paper money.
1970 Catherine II introduced paper money.
1970 The Russian Empire was divided into eight provinces by the decree of Peter I.
29 December
1970 The 36-year civil war in Guatemala ended in reconciliation between the parties.
1970 Catherine II introduced paper money.
1970 Catherine II introduced paper money.
1970 The Russian Empire was divided into eight provinces by the decree of Peter I.
THE SUPREME COURT WILL DETERMINE WHO CAN "SCULPT AND COOK"
![THE SUPREME COURT WILL DETERMINE WHO CAN "SCULPT AND COOK"](/upload/iblock/597/file_41.jpg "THE SUPREME COURT WILL DETERMINE WHO CAN "SCULPT AND COOK"")
The company appealed to the court with a demand to prohibit the company from using verbal elements that are similar to the applicant's trademarks. Three instances partially satisfied the plaintiff's claims, but the Supreme Court became interested in the dispute (Ruling on the transfer of No.301-ES23-12433 dated 06.10.2023 in case No. A43-26747/2021).
LLC "Investment Company "Young and Beautiful" filed a claim against LLC "Spar Middle Volga" for the protection of exclusive rights to trademarks. The plaintiff demanded to prohibit the defendant from any use of designations containing the verbal elements "Sculpt we Cook" and "Dumplings we Cook", which were suspiciously similar to the trademarks "Young and Beautiful" "Sculpt and Cook". The applicant also asked to oblige Spar Middle Volga to exclude from the names of signs, menus, names of dishes, cash receipts, advertising brochures, from the website, from social networks and any other tangible and intangible media any designations, the content of disputed verbal designations, as well as to recover from the company 21 million rubles of compensation, about 1.3 million expenses to collect evidence and establish for the defendant a penalty in the amount of 10 thousand rubles for each day of non-compliance with
Position of the courts
Three instances partially satisfied the claims. In support of their position, the courts indicated that the violation by the company of the exclusive rights of the plaintiff has been proven. They also recognized the activity of "Spar Middle Volga" on the sale of finished culinary products as a homogeneous activity, which wa
The basis for the transfer
The higher instance became interested in the arguments of the cassation appeal and decided to consider the dispute on the following grounds:
• The courts, assessing the uniformity of the defendant's activities with the services for which the plaintiff's trademarks are registered, arbitrarily changed the qualification of the type of activity "Spar Middle Volga" using the disputed designation.
• The case materials do not contain evidence of the defendant providing any services to third parties using the disputed designation.
• A sign with a controversial designation on one of the retail counters serves to individualize the product being sold, not the service.
• Spar Middle Volga also argues that the conclusions of the courts on the violation by the company of the exclusive rights of the company were made without taking into account the legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which the use by other persons of verbal elements that do not have signs of protectability, including in entrepreneurial activity, by virtue of the law, in any case, cannot be recognized as a violation of exclusive rights.
The essence of the dispute
LLC "Investment Company "Young and Beautiful" filed a claim against LLC "Spar Middle Volga" for the protection of exclusive rights to trademarks. The plaintiff demanded to prohibit the defendant from any use of designations containing the verbal elements "Sculpt we Cook" and "Dumplings we Cook", which were suspiciously similar to the trademarks "Young and Beautiful" "Sculpt and Cook". The applicant also asked to oblige Spar Middle Volga to exclude from the names of signs, menus, names of dishes, cash receipts, advertising brochures, from the website, from social networks and any other tangible and intangible media any designations, the content of disputed verbal designations, as well as to recover from the company 21 million rubles of compensation, about 1.3 million expenses to collect evidence and establish for the defendant a penalty in the amount of 10 thousand rubles for each day of non-compliance with
the injunction prohibi
ting the use of the disputed designation.Position of the courts
Three instances partially satisfied the claims. In support of their position, the courts indicated that the violation by the company of the exclusive rights of the plaintiff has been proven. They also recognized the activity of "Spar Middle Volga" on the sale of finished culinary products as a homogeneous activity, which wa
s individualized by the pl
aintiff through the registration of trademarks.The basis for the transfer
The higher instance became interested in the arguments of the cassation appeal and decided to consider the dispute on the following grounds:
• The courts, assessing the uniformity of the defendant's activities with the services for which the plaintiff's trademarks are registered, arbitrarily changed the qualification of the type of activity "Spar Middle Volga" using the disputed designation.
• The case materials do not contain evidence of the defendant providing any services to third parties using the disputed designation.
• A sign with a controversial designation on one of the retail counters serves to individualize the product being sold, not the service.
• Spar Middle Volga also argues that the conclusions of the courts on the violation by the company of the exclusive rights of the company were made without taking into account the legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which the use by other persons of verbal elements that do not have signs of protectability, including in entrepreneurial activity, by virtue of the law, in any case, cannot be recognized as a violation of exclusive rights.
30.10.2023
