In a hearing on 17.03.2005, the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dismissed the cassational complaint filed by CJSC “Trodat – S.N.G.” and LLC “Trodat XXI” against the decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow of 06.10.2004 and

It was earlier reported that the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow satisfied the claim filed by the company Kolop Stempelerzeugung Skopek GmbH and Co. KG, AT, whose interests were represented by the attorneys of the law firm “YUST”, and bound CJSC “Trodat – S.N.G..”, LLC “Trodat XXI” and LLC “Max Stamp” to desist from violating patent rights. This case is an interesting example of the practice of consideration of disputes connected with exclusive rights to industrial samples.

CJSC “Trodat – S.N.G.” and LLC “Trodat XXI” filed a complaint against the above-mentioned ruling of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow with the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court, but their complaint was dismissed.

On 14.02.2005 CJSC “Trodat S.N.G.” and LLC “Trodat XXI” filed a cassational complaint against the decision of the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court of the City of Moscow of 06.12.2004 and the resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court of the City of Moscow of 09.12.2004. The main grounds indicated in this cassational complaint were the rejection of the conclusions of an expertise, conducted in acco4dance with a motion submitted to the court of the first instance by the Respondent. Inter alia, the cassational complaint indicated that the production of CJSC “Trodat – S.N.G.” and LLC “Trodat XXI” differs from the industrial sample patented by the Claimant by having two and nor three apertures in the body of the equipment, enabling surveillance of the movement of the stamping plate. The Respondents based their argument on the outcome of an analysis conducted at their request by a private patent attorney, and also cited extracts from the decision of the Chamber of Patent Disputes.

In turn, the representative of the Claimant pointed out that the documents cited by the Re-spondent have no force as evidence, and, consequently, rejection of the expertise is not supported by the necessary proof. Moreover, the Claimant’s representative drew the attention of the court to the cir-cumstance that the provisions of the law concerning industrial samples may be interpreted only in conjunction with art.6, which determines an industrial sample as an artistic-constructional resolution of an article of industrial or amateur production, that determines its external appearance, and states that the significant features of an industrial example include features that determine the aesthetic and (or) ergonomic specifics of the article, including its shape, configuration, ornamentation and color combinations. Consequently, the constructional differences between the production of the re-spondents and that of the industrial sample patented by the claimant have no bearing on the overall conclusion that the patent was violated.

After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow Dis-trict found no grounds to satisfy the cassational complaint and sustained the decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow of 06.10.2004 and the resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court of 9.12.2004.