Patent dispute in toy furniture.
foreign person - EPOCH COMPANY, LTD. (hereinafter - the company) has addressed in Arbitration court of Moscow the statement of claim specified as article 49 of the Arbitration procedural code of the Russian Federation on limited liability companies "TNG" (hereinafter - the company "TNG" 1087746571000 bin, bin 5087746209524, 5137746032749 bin, bin 1117746289946 respectively) and individual entrepreneur Salnikova Dmitry Vladimirovich (more - entrepreneur), which is subject to partial refusal of claim requirements, including the adopted supplementary decision from 17.12.2018, requested to prohibit the defendant to carry out the importation, storage, transportation, offer for sale and sale in online stores www.abtoys.ru and www.tngtoys.ru toys, the following articles and items:
Set of furniture for dining room "happy friends", article PT-00302; set of furniture for bedroom "Happy friends", article PT-00303; set of furniture for kitchen-dining room "Happy friends", article PT-00305; country Villa with accessories "Happy friends", article PT-00306; Summer house, game set "Happy friends", article PT-00307; set of furniture for kitchen-dining room "Happy friends", article PT-00312; "happy friends", Article PT-00313; bathroom furniture set "happy friends", article PT-00314; Set of living room furniture in trendy white color "Happy friends", article PT-00453; to oblige companies "TNG" to withdraw from circulation and destroy your account data toys; and to pay each of the defendants compensation for violation of exclusive rights to the works in the amount of 100 000 rubles.
The foreign firm demanded to stop the import and sale of toy furniture through the websites of the defendants. Previous instances denied the claim, but the intellectual property Court sent the case for review.
Works of design are independent objects of copyright. To protect them, it is not necessary to obtain a patent for an industrial design. Based on the presumption of authorship, the plaintiff does not have to prove the rights to the disputed design. The plaintiff provided a notarized statement of the author about creating for plaintiff a service works with thumbnails, author's certificates and photos.
The courts found that the plaintiff did not prove copyright infringement, did not identify the defendants and did not confirm their affiliation. However, the plaintiff submitted to the court the disputed goods with cash receipts, invoices online store, minutes of notarial examination of the sites of the defendants. One of the defendants is the administrator of a website that sold toys, and the suppliers listed on the packaging of the goods are firms that he established.