The owner of the smart home brand seeks the abolition of protection of the Xiaomi brand in the Russian Federation
[ad_1]
The Russian UltraTrade, which owns the YouSmart brand of smart home products, intends to achieve the abolition of the legal protection of the Xiaomi brand in the Russian Federation. Russian courts have already satisfied a similar claim for certain categories of goods, in particular in dishes. UltraTrade explains the claims as “over-protection” of the Xiaomi brand, including in categories where it is not represented. Lawyers, however, believe that the company expects as a result to establish a parallel import of Xiaomi devices, which is now officially not allowed in Russia.
The Intellectual Property Court (IPC) accepted a lawsuit filed by UltraTrade (Ultra LLC), which supplies and sells smart home equipment, to cancel the legal protection of the Xiaomi trademark owned by the Chinese company of the same name. According to the documents published in the file of the case, “non-use” of the brand in Russia is cited as grounds for cancellation. The application was received on July 4, the first meeting is scheduled for September 18.
Ultra LLC regularly declares the import of consumer electronics Yeelight, Viomi, Mijia and other brands associated with Xiaomi, follows from the register of declarations of conformity of the EAEU. The company in its online store sells both products of these brands, as well as TVs and soundbars directly from Xiaomi. The Xiaomi brand on the UltraTrade website is even mentioned in the descriptions of non-Xiaomi products, such as Lexar flash drives (owned by Chinese Longsys). UltraTrade also produces smart plugs, cameras and toilets under its own YouSmart brand.
The lawsuit is related to the actions of third companies that, by proxy from Xiaomi, protect trademark rights even in those categories where the brand is not used, Pavel Beresnev, a patent attorney representing Ultra LLC, explained to Kommersant.
The company, he said, did not specify the specific categories in which it wants to achieve brand cancellation: “In which categories we prove interest, and the copyright holder does not prove the fact of using the trademark, protection will be canceled in those categories.”
Xiaomi is in the top 5 in sales in almost all categories related to smart home, explained Kommersant in F + tech | Marvel”: “Partner companies of different years that are part of the Mi Home ecosystem are also popular with Russian consumers.” In total, such brands, according to the group, occupy 30-70% of the market, depending on the category of devices. In the list of goods for which parallel import is allowed in the Russian Federation, Xiaomi is not.
871.8 million
smart devices delivered in 2022 worldwide, according to IDC
Russian courts have already partially canceled the legal protection of the Xiaomi brand in the Russian Federation. So, in October 2022, CIP did this for cookware, non-electric blenders, and a range of other household and kitchen appliances; in February the decision stood in cassation. The decision was made in response to a lawsuit filed by Hong Kong-based Smart International Distribution Limited, which claims to be the owner of the Econ and National Electronics Corporation brands. Under these brands, positioned as Japanese, TVs and home appliances are produced in Russia. Kommersant did not find their presence in online stores in other countries.
The fact that Ultra wants to cancel the legal protection of the Xiaomi mark not only for smart home products, but for all categories, “confirms the plaintiff’s intention to build its sales on the designation that has already been promoted for the consumer,” private lawyer Natalya Pantyukhina believes.
Maxim Volkov, Deputy Head of Patentus Dispute Resolution Practice, admits that the demand may also be aimed at expanding the parallel import of goods under a controversial brand: “Perhaps Ultra is trying to earn a better position for negotiations with Xiaomi in order to resolve the issue with the sale of original products in the Russian Federation “.
The interest that the plaintiff will have to prove in court implies a real interest of the company in using certain types of goods, says Ekaterina Tilling, head of Birch Legal’s IP practice: “The court needs to present weighty reasons why the plaintiff needs this designation so much, and they should documented.”
[ad_2]
Source link
