According to RU MARKS, a company that specializes in trademark
registration in Russia, Moscow's Ninth Arbitration Court of
Appeal recently ruled against Holmrook Limited, a company based in
the British Virgin Islands, which registered the rado.ru domain,
identical to a word mark owned by Rado, a Swiss luxury watchmaker. The Ninth
Arbitration Court of Appeal has thus upheld the 2011 ruling of the
Moscow Arbitration Court of Appeal.
On September 9, 2011, the Moscow Arbitration Court of Appeal
requested the cancellation of rado.ru domain registration and
ordered the defendant to pay EUR 1,280 (USD 1,570) for the
unauthorized use of the trademark 'rado', which has the
priority date of May 14, 1987 with respect to goods in Class 14 of
the Nice Classification (precious metals, goods made of precious
metals not included in other classes, jewelry, clocks and
The court ruled the domain, registered in 1999, was confusingly
similar to the plaintiff's trademark, in spite of the fact that
Holmrook Limited is not Rado's competitor in the field of watch
The court ruled that the plaintiff's trademarks were
entitled to protection within Article 10bis of the Paris Convention
for Protection of Industrial Property, according to which "all
the actions that can cause by any means confusion in respect of
companies, products, industrial or trading activities of a
competitor are subject to prohibition".
RU MARKS notes that Holmrook Limited also used to be the owner
of the domain names tissot.ru and longines.ru, identical to word
marks owned by Tissot and Longines, also luxury Swiss watchmakers.
The Russian court ruled against Holmrook in both cases and ordered
the defendant to pay EUR 1,280 (USD 1,570) in damages to each
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.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On 8 September 2016 (C-160/15), the CJEU ruled that the posting of a hyperlink to copyright-protected works located on another website does not constitute copyright infringement when the link poster does not seek financial gain.
The chapter on the UK summarises the IP court and litigation system in the UK, recent developments in relation to IP law and practice, the forms and availability of IP protection and trends and outlook in the IP sphere.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).