Dyson will be vacuumed in court
[ad_1]
The Chinese company is challenging the protection in Russia of the Dyson brand, which is owned by the eponymous British manufacturer of vacuum cleaners and hair dryers. The brand stopped sales in the country in the spring of 2022, but its goods are supplied under parallel imports. The same applicant has already filed a similar lawsuit against Xiaomi and has been successful in one of the classes at first instance. According to lawyers, in case of winning, the plaintiff will be able to register trademarks in Russia that are as similar as possible to well-known brands and use their reputation.
“Kommersant” found in the file of arbitration cases that the Russian intellectual property court accepted the lawsuit dated November 21, filed by the Hong Kong Smart International Distribution Limited against the British Dyson Technology Limited. It will be reviewed on June 5th. The applicant asks for early termination of the legal protection of a number of trademarks, both Russian and international, in respect of all goods and services for which they are registered, “due to non-use”. Among the disputed designations are the Dyson trademark and similar ones Dyson, Dyson, Dyson Ball.
Dyson is a well-known manufacturer of household appliances: vacuum cleaners, hair dryers and humidifiers. In April 2022, the company announced that due to the military actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, it would stop working on the Russian market. In 2022, the Ministry of Industry and Trade included Dyson products in the list of goods allowed to be imported into the country as part of parallel imports (without the consent of the copyright holder). The share of Dyson in the market of wireless upright vacuum cleaners in the Russian Federation in 2021 exceeded 30% in monetary terms, Stanislav Soltitsky, Deputy Director for Strategic Development at Marvel F + tech, says. In 2022, its share has dropped to less than 15%, he says.
Smart International Distribution Limited, according to its website, manufactures electronics, home appliances and climate control equipment. It says that the company’s factories produce more than 10 thousand units in China, Korea and Japan. Dyson and Smart International Distribution Limited did not respond to Kommersant’s inquiries.
Dyson risks losing its trademarks in the part that it has not used for the last three years, Sergey Zuykov, managing partner of Zuykov and Partners, explained: “For example, one of the marks is registered for a number of goods of the 7th class, including vacuum cleaners, coffee grinders and juicers. If Dyson proves the use of the trademark for vacuum cleaners, but does not prove it for coffee grinders and juicers, then the court will cancel the trademark for them. When registering vacant signs for other persons, returning Dyson to the Russian market under the same brand in these categories will be difficult or impossible, says atLegal partner Alexander Pavlovsky.
Regardless of whether the company has left the Russian market and plans to return, the issues of protection against counterfeiting remain strategically important, says Azalia Garipova, lawyer at BGP Litigation. According to her, within the framework of parallel imports, the “burden of proof” of the originality of the imported goods lies with the importer: “It is still prohibited to import counterfeit products that are illegally marked with a trademark. Accordingly, Dyson can still enforce its rights.”
Meanwhile, Smart International Distribution Limited is not the first time trying to challenge the rights to well-known trademarks in the Russian Federation. In November 2021, the company filed a similar lawsuit against Xiaomi Inc., challenging class 21 trademark protection (home or kitchen appliances, devices and utensils). In October 2022, the court granted this claim, Xiaomi will try to challenge it in cassation on January 16. The benefit of Smart International Distribution Limited from such lawsuits is simple, says Sergey Zuykov: to register trademarks as similar (identical) to well-known brands as possible and to use someone else’s reputation from the sale of goods with such marks.
[ad_2]
Source link
