home Sample Documents Unfair competition in the commodity market. Forms of unfair competition

Unfair competition in the commodity market. Forms of unfair competition

As a rule, the evolution of industrial and competition policy reflects not so much the peculiarities of the relationship between them as changes in the prevailing point of view on state intervention in the economy as a whole.

Where the state is treated as a necessary evil, and the principle of free trade (lassez-faire) is proclaimed as dominant in economic life, both competitive and industrial policies are limited to the narrow framework of antitrust regulation and selective adjustments for the negative effects of the market mechanism itself. It is believed that the perfect functioning competitive market itself eliminates existing monopoly effects and prevents their creation in the future. The state, on the other hand, acts as a factor of a monopoly rather than a competitive nature.

Where the state is given a more significant role as a regulator market activity, and competition is interpreted from the standpoint of a balanced assessment of constructive and destructive moments, and industrial and competitive policies acquire a broader interpretation. Antitrust regulation is being transformed or accompanied by a comprehensive pro-competition policy, and industrial policy is using more global public welfare criteria, including the structural dimension.

Overcoming the imperfections of commodity and financial markets is achieved through a harmonious combination of the principles of competition and industrial policy. Competition policy is aimed at preventing the monopolization of markets by individual agents. Industrial policy aims to provide selective support to those entities that, due to market imperfections, have been deprived of equal rights to compete. In this understanding, one can find the basis for reconciling the interests of the two types of policies as complementary levers of state influence on the economic situation.

Competition is not in all cases a self-reproducing mechanism. The state must support competition to increase economic efficiency and achieving economic growth goals. However, the state may limit competition based on the objectives of industrial policy. Therefore, when making decisions in the field of competition policy, it is necessary to evaluate all economic consequences and not only directly affecting competition as such. On the other hand, since industrial policy measures, explicitly or implicitly, willingly or unwillingly, have an impact on the competitive situation in the industry and in the economy as a whole, the development of industrial policy requires coordination with antimonopoly regulation.

Contradictions and unregulated relationships between industrial policy and the policy of supporting competition can additionally hamper economic growth and (or) the development of individual industries and spheres of the national economy.

Economic policy

Fair and unfair competition in the commodity market

Basic definitions

Unfair competition- a set of unethical dishonest methods and methods of economic rivalry between business entities.

fair competition- playing by the rules, the norms of the current legislation, established business practices.

The concept of unfair competition appeared in France in 1850. At the international level, it was recorded in Art. 10 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in 1863.

Types of unfair competition

■ Illegal use of the name, trademark, marks of a competitor.

■ Copying a competitor's products.

■ Discrediting a competitor's products and reputation, spreading false information about a competitor.

■ Disclosure of production secrets, trade secrets.

■ Consumer interception.

■ Misleading consumers about the quality of their product and the competitor's product, about the place of origin of the product.

■ Unscrupulous pricing.

■ Use of illegal labor.

■ Poaching a competitor's employees.

■ Withdrawal of a product from circulation before a price increase or for the purpose of a price increase.

■ Establishing the dependence of the supply of products on the receipt of other products or services marking your product with a competitor's trademark.

■ Reselling a competitor's product under your own trademark.

■ Selling your product with an advertisement featuring a competitor's product.

■ Reselling someone else's merchandise that has had competitors' trademarks removed.

■ Conducting business under a false name.

■ Actions by former employees that violate business secrets.

■ False claims about other people's goods and services.

■ False product description.

■ Silence about the essential properties of the product, the presence or absence of which is expected by consumers.

Purpose of unfair competition

■ Attracting consumer demand.

■ Eliminate a competitor.

■ Competitor's internal disorganization.

Causes of unfair competition

■ Lack of consumer awareness.

■ The presence of high transaction costs associated with obtaining information.

■ Unequal bargaining power between the buyer and seller of the product.

Mechanisms for protection against unfair competition

■ State information policy.

■ Society of consumers.

■ Institute for Business Self-Regulation: Code of Professional Ethics.

■ Joint private and public institutions.

■ Community councils.

■ Government prohibitions on fraud.

■ Measures to create conditions for the development of fair competition.

Legislation to prevent unfair competition

1. Countries where unfair competition is regulated on the basis of legislation:

■ general rule of fair and unfair competition:

Germany;

Switzerland;

■ list of individual actions related to unfair competition:

2. Countries where not special laws about unfair competition, there are only general rules of civil law:

Netherlands.

3. Countries where the prosecution of unfair competition is carried out on the basis of judicial precedents:

Australia;

United Kingdom;

Ireland;

4. Countries where there is a general rule and special regulations on individual acts of unfair competition.

CHAPTER 1. UNFAIR COMPETITION: CONCEPT AND SIGNS

1. The problem of competition in economic and legal theory

2. Unfair competition as actions aimed at acquiring advantages in entrepreneurial activity

3. Contradiction of acts of unfair competition with the provisions of the current legislation, business practices, requirements of integrity, reasonableness, fairness

4. Legal Consequences of Unfair Competitive Actions

CHAPTER 2. FORMS OF UNFAIR COMPETITION

1. Unfair competitive practices relating to information about a competitor and its products

2. Unfair competitive actions related to the sale, exchange or other introduction into circulation of goods with the illegal use of the results of intellectual activity and equivalent means of individualization

3. Unfair competitive practices related to disorganization production process competitor

CHAPTER 3. LEGAL METHODS FOR SUPPRESSING UNFAIR COMPETITION

1. Features of legal liability for acts of unfair competition

2. Jurisdictional ways to combat unfair competition

3. Non-jurisdictional ways to combat unfair competition

Please note the above scientific texts posted for review and obtained through recognition original texts dissertations (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Basic concepts

From v. 4 federal law dated July 26, 2006, No. 135-FZ “On Protection of Competition” (Law No. 135-FZ) defines competition as rivalry between business entities, in which the independent actions of each of them exclude or limit the ability of each of them to unilaterally influence general terms and Conditions circulation of goods in the relevant commodity market.

Unfair competition are any actions of economic entities aimed at obtaining advantages in the implementation of entrepreneurial activities and contrary to the legislation of the Russian Federation, business customs, the requirements of integrity, reasonableness and fairness, and which caused/may cause damage to other competing economic entities or caused/may cause harm to them business reputation.

Under business practice Art. 5 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation recognizes the rule of conduct that has developed and is widely used in any area of business activity, which is not provided for by law, regardless of whether it is recorded in any document.

Under business reputation is understood as the general opinion that has formed about business, professional qualities, evaluation of production and economic activities of a legal entity. Terms "decency", "reasonableness", "justice" not defined by applicable law. The Antimonopoly Office believes that these terms should be used in accordance with their general meaning in Russian. In particular, "respectable" is interpreted as decent, commendable, decent, and the term "decent", in turn, as honest and appropriate. Categories "reasonableness" and "justice" reflect different moral principles, which should apply to entrepreneurial activities (the rules of conduct for an ordinary person, for example, in relation to relatives and friends, may differ from the accepted rules for conducting entrepreneurial activities). Actions that are contrary to the law or business practices are not considered as honest ones.

Under commodity market the legislator understands the sphere of circulation of goods (including goods of foreign production), which cannot be replaced by another goods, or interchangeable goods, within which (including geographical), based on economic, technical or other feasibility or expediency, the acquirer can purchase goods, and such an opportunity or expediency is absent outside of it.

Antimonopoly Authority (FAS Russia and its territorial departments) reveals violations of the antimonopoly law, takes measures to stop the violation and holds accountable for such violations; prevents monopolistic activity, unfair competition, and other violations of antitrust laws. The fact of recognizing the actions of an economic entity as dishonest, unreasonable or unfair in relation to other entities in the market is established by the commission of the antimonopoly body, the decision of which can be appealed in court.

If there is no competition

Before establishing the fact of unfair competition, the antimonopoly body and/or the court, when considering the case, must establish the existence of competitive relations between economic entities (applicant/plaintiff and defendant).

If the fact of competition is not established, holding a person liable for violating Law No. 135-FZ becomes.

Example 1

Collapse Show

Forms of unfair competition

According to Art. 14 of Law No. 135-FZ, unfair competition is not allowed. The article provides a list of forms.

So, let's look at the main definitions.

Under dissemination of information discrediting the honor and dignity of citizens or the business reputation of citizens and legal entities , is understood as the publication of such information in the press, broadcast on radio and television, demonstration in newsreel programs and other mass media, distribution on the Internet, as well as using other means of telecommunications, presentation in performance characteristics, public speaking, statements addressed officials, or a message in one form or another, including oral, to at least one person.

defamatory information - information containing allegations of a violation by a citizen / legal entity current legislation, committing a dishonest act, incorrect, unethical behavior in personal, public or political life, bad faith in the implementation of production, economic and entrepreneurial activities, violation business ethics or business practices that detract from the honor and dignity of a citizen or the business reputation of a citizen or legal entity.

Information that does not correspond to reality - statements about facts or events that did not take place in reality at the time to which the disputed information relates.

Distribution of false, inaccurate or distorted information that may cause losses to an economic entity or damage its business reputation

The dissemination of information that does not correspond to reality is a public announcement of facts or events that did not take place in reality (including on the Internet). For example, the antimonopoly authorities arbitrage practice recognize as acts of unfair competition and attempts by companies to improve their image by indicating, for example, false information about themselves on the site, as well as the names of famous people and the names of reputable companies that are supposedly.

There are also reverse examples, when a manufacturer of goods, works, services in advertising materials, on websites and in other ways disseminates negative information about competitors. For example, they refer to their products as hopelessly outdated and / or dangerous for consumers / service personnel. In such situations, competitors have the right to protect their rights. They can apply to the antimonopoly body/court with an application, which is accompanied by documents confirming the absence of these shortcomings. Based on the results of the consideration of the case, an unscrupulous competitor may be required to refute information that does not correspond to reality. So, if discrediting the business reputation of competitors and untrue information was published on the company's own website on the Internet, the violator may be required to post a refutation on the same site. To compensate for reputational damage and losses, the victim of unfair competition will have to go to court.

By disseminating negative information about a competitor, its products, services, works, firms and entrepreneurs often aim to create uncertainty among consumers about the reliability and integrity of the manufacturer, supplier, as well as a negative perception production activities and competitor products. Such actions may cause losses to the latter.

Example 2

Collapse Show

LLC "S" for some time disseminated information about LLC "T", from which it followed that the latter company does not have experience in developing products, the necessary production facilities and qualified personnel, that the company's employees make numerous mistakes when solving issues of operation, maintenance and repair of products . As in most other cases, similar action was aimed at causing losses and damaging (belittling) the business reputation of T LLC. Potential buyers of LLC "T" products, having received false information and under its influence, refused to cooperate with the specified company and entered into agreements with LLC "S". In addition, in such situations, there is a real threat to relations with counterparties under existing agreements. Under the influence of false information, one of the regular buyers terminated the contract for the supply of a large batch industrial equipment with LLC "T", having concluded a supply contract with LLC "S" (this buyer was not even afraid of the sanctions provided for unilateral withdrawal from the contract).

In seeking to refute certain statements as false and recognize the fact of unfair competition by the antimonopoly authority / court, the victims, as in the case under consideration, have to prove that they have a sufficient amount of their own production capacities and submit lists of production equipment, inventory, confirm the qualifications of personnel (show work books and documents on the education of employees). Evidence is also provided that the manufacturer has been operating in a certain market for a long time and has not received claims from counterparties on issues of unqualified and poor-quality solutions to certain issues and tasks. Collecting and processing such evidence can be a very lengthy process, but if the fact of unfair competition is established by an act of an authorized body or a court decision, the chances of obtaining compensation will increase.

Before considering other forms of unfair competition, we stipulate that any person (including your competitor) has the right to apply to authorized bodies / officials and report information about known or suspected facts of violations by third parties in order to draw attention to an unfavorable situations. Such an appeal is not aimed at disseminating information to a circle of people, and the actions of competitors in connection with sending appeals are not acts of unfair competition. If the inspections reveal violations of the law, the violators bear the risk of adverse consequences, and the business reputation of the violators, if it suffers, is not as a result of an act of unfair competition.

Incorrect comparison by an economic entity of goods produced or sold by it with goods produced or sold by other economic entities

The purpose of such actions is usually to discredit a competitor, his products (goods, works, services). With the help of incorrect comparisons, consumers (including potential ones) of goods (works, services) form stable assessments of certain behavior as the only possible one (acquisition of goods from only one manufacturer (from one group of persons). At the same time, there are sufficient legal and factual grounds for As a result, not only competitors suffer, but also consumers who are deprived of the opportunity to fully choose.

Example 3

Collapse Show

LLC "S" distributed a brochure at exhibitions, which contained negative information about competing companies and their products. In special sections of the brochure, LLC "S" products were compared with similar products of competing companies. The result of all comparisons was the same: the goods of LLC "S" have a number of undeniable advantages. In the brochure, for example, it was indicated that the goods of LLC "T" have many well-known shortcomings, very low reliability.

Manufacturers whose products were unfairly criticized (including OOO T) filed a complaint with the territorial department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia against the actions of OOO S.

The applicants attached to the complaint brochures and testimonies of participants, visitors of exhibitions, from which it followed that the brochures were distributed by the employees of OOO “S”. The applicants submitted to the antimonopoly authority photographs of the exhibition stand of LLC “S”, on the rack of which copies of the brochure were placed (their design coincided with the design of the brochures submitted to the OFAS). The applicants provided other documentary evidence that the information about their goods and services specified in the brochures is not true (certificates for manufactured and sold products, feedback on the operation of the equipment, operational test reports refuting the conclusions about the unreliability of the equipment). The antimonopoly body received additional evidence in the case at its request, incl. about the fact that the brochure was created with the participation of employees of LLC "S", printed by order of the company and paid for by them.

By the decision of the antimonopoly authority, the actions of LLC “S” were recognized as an act of unfair competition. The company received an order to eliminate the violation. In pursuance of the order, all participants of the exhibition were notified in writing that the information in the brochure was unreliable and/or contained an incorrect comparison of products. The distribution of the brochure has been discontinued.

The arbitration court upheld the lawfulness and validity of the decision of the antimonopoly service, stating that the negative information contained in the brochure, being a statement of facts that did not correspond to reality, was an act of unfair competition.

Against LLC “S”, the antimonopoly authority initiated another case, this time a case of an administrative offense under Art. 14.33 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

Separate violations of intellectual property law can simultaneously be considered as violations of competition law. The right holder can protect his rights in the ways provided for both by intellectual property legislation (by applying, for example, to law enforcement agencies, to the court) and by antimonopoly legislation (by applying to the FAS Russia or its territorial body). In addition, some ways to promote goods, works or services, incl. those that are not advertising in terms of advertising law may be considered antitrust violations.

Misrepresentation in relation to the nature, method and place of production, consumer properties, quality and quantity of goods or in relation to its producers

So, many manufacturers unreasonably indicate the use of certain exclusive / unique technologies in production, or the company places a note on the website about the low quality of products, competitors, about its non-compliance with the declared standards, etc.

Example 4

Collapse Show

On March 2, 2010, the Moscow Arbitration Court upheld the lawfulness and validity of the decision of the Moscow OFAS Russia in relation to Alkoy-Holding LLC in the case of violation of competition law. In 2009, the antimonopoly authority found Alkoy-Holding LLC to have violated Part 1 of Article 14 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”. Since February 2009, the company has been producing and selling dietary supplements "Coenzyme Q 10. Cell Energy" in packages that are similar to the degree of confusion (according to appearance, in terms of size, design and color scheme) with packages of dietary supplements "KUDESAN", which were sold by CJSC "AKVION" since 2006. Both additives can be comparable in terms of functional purpose, application and consumer properties, and their implementation is carried out in the same pharmacies, on the same commodity shelves. The retail price of dietary supplement "KUDESAN" is from 250 to 300 rubles, and dietary supplement "Coenzyme Q 10. Cell Energy" - from 134 to 180 rubles. The Arbitration Court agreed with the opinion of the Moscow OFAS Russia that the unfair actions of LLC Alkoy-Holding in the production and sale of dietary supplements Coenzyme Q 10. Cell Energy in packages similar to the degree of confusion with the packages of dietary supplements KUDESAN may misleading consumers of these goods.

Sale, exchange or other introduction into circulation of goods, if the results of intellectual activity and equivalent means of individualization of a legal entity, means of individualization of products, works, services were illegally used

In foreign antimonopoly practice, such actions are called "driving with a hare." Realizing the illegitimacy of such actions, companies and entrepreneurs, using some popular and, most importantly, someone else's brand, seek to gain advantages over other competitors at the expense of someone else's business reputation. Then companies are registered in whose names all or part of the well-known name of another company is present or the products receive similar names or the product is produced in a package that is like two drops of water similar to the packaging of a competitor's product.

Illegal receipt, use, disclosure of information constituting a commercial, official or other secret protected by law

Recall that the current legislation understands a trade secret as a regime of confidentiality of information that allows its owner, under existing or possible circumstances, to increase income, avoid unjustified expenses, maintain a position in the market for goods, works, services, or obtain other commercial benefits. Information constituting a trade secret (production secret) is information of any nature (production, technical, economic, organizational, and others), including the results of intellectual activity in the scientific and technical field, as well as information about the methods of carrying out professional activities that have actual or potential commercial value due to their being unknown to third parties, to which third parties do not have free access on a legal basis and in respect of which the owner of such information has introduced a trade secret regime.

Due to the specifics of cases and difficulties in proving such violations, there are not so many cases of illegal receipt, use and disclosure of information constituting a commercial, official or other secret protected by law.

Acquisition and use of the exclusive right to means of individualization of a legal entity, means of individualization of products, works or services

The most common way of this form of unfair competition is the use by a legal entity of a brand name of an economic entity known to consumers - a competitor.

Many designations that are well known to the consumer for a long time and are widely used by different manufacturers. Often such designations were not registered as trademarks. Unscrupulous manufacturers and sellers by hook or by crook try to become the copyright holders of popular, but "no one's" designations and thereby gain unreasonable advantages over competitors. Let us consider a few indicative and almost textbook cases.

Example 5

Collapse Show

Verbal designations "Amber" and "Friendship" from the 60s. of the twentieth century were used in the production and sale of processed cheeses various enterprises Soviet Union and Russia. The name of the cheeses, the type of label (packaging) were strictly linked to GOSTs, TUs, sanitary and other standards. For several decades, the population has developed a stable idea of high quality cheese data.

In the mid 90s. ZAO Moscow Processed Cheese Plant Karat filed an application for registration of the combined trademarks Druzhba and Yantar in respect of goods of class 29 of the Nice Classification (processed cheeses), which include the word part as a protected part. After registration, the CJSC-right holder notified other processed cheese producers of its rights to trademarks.

OJSC Kropotkinsky dairy plant”, which has been producing Druzhba cheese since 1967, and Yantar cheese since 1992 in 2003-2004. repeatedly asked the management of the right holder CJSC to agree or sell a license for the production of these cheeses. The plant informed the right holder that it had every opportunity to produce high-quality products (provided information about the raw materials used, its equipment, knowledge of production technology). In response, Karat CJSC reported that it did not find the possibility of granting the right to Kropotkin Dairy Plant OJSC to finalize packaging materials and labels, as well as issuing licenses for the production of processed cheeses under the Druzhba and Yantar trademarks. Since 2004, the plant was forced to stop the production of processed cheeses.

In the same period, the plant filed a complaint against the CJSC with the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Krasnodar Territory.

On November 2, 2005, by decision of the antimonopoly authority, the actions of CJSC Karat on the acquisition and use of exclusive rights to the word designations Druzhba and Yantar within the framework of registered combined trademarks were recognized as an act of unfair competition. As it was established during the consideration of the case, these verbal designations have been widely used for a long time both for marking cheeses for sale, and in special technical literature when designating a variety of processed cheese. By 1997, verbal designations had lost their distinctive ability and UAB could not individualize its products with the help of trademark registration. The actions of Karat CJSC in registering the combined trademarks Yantar and Druzhba, in the opinion of the antimonopoly department, were aimed at acquiring advantages in entrepreneurial activity without incurring costs for promoting their trademarks on the market. These actions, as well as the refusal to conclude a license agreement, were contrary to the law and were acts of unfair competition.

Already after the recognition by the Federal Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District in October 2006 of the decision of the OFAS as legal, the story continued. On March 19, 2007 CJSC "Karat" became the owner of a new combined trademark with word elements "Cheese Yantar", "Melted", "Karat" (the application for registration was filed in May 2005).

A few days after the decision to register the Federal government agency « Federal Institute Industrial Property” (FIPS) received a decision from the antimonopoly body and a court order recognizing the actions of CJSC “Karat” as an act of unfair competition. In April 2007, FIPS withdrew the decision on registration as taken prematurely and indicated that the examination of the applied designation would be continued. KARAT CJSC appealed the notice of withdrawal of the registration decision in the arbitration court and asked the court to oblige FIPS to register the trademark and issue a certificate. The courts of the first, appeal and cassation instances did not find grounds for satisfying the claim, and the Supreme Arbitration Court Russian Federation- to review the case.

Another resonant story.

Example 6

Collapse Show

Since 2003 a number Russian enterprises Food Industry set up production and introduced the Thousand Islands / 1000 Islands sauces into circulation. The sauce recipe has been repeatedly published in culinary collections. Since May 2005, Preobrazhensky Dairy Plant LLC has begun to sell the sauce with the same name.

The fact that the sauce had already been put into circulation by competitors, LLC could not help but know. However, it filed for a trademark and subsequently obtained title documents allowing it to market sauces under the name Thousand Islands/1000 Islands.

On October 31, 2008 Preobrazhensky Dairy Plant LLC was imposed an administrative penalty in the form of an administrative fine for the fact of unfair competition in the amount of 100,000 rubles. The Moscow OFAS Russia found that the company's actions related to the acquisition and use of exclusive rights to the verbal trademark "Thousand Islands" according to certificate No. 328276 and "1000 Islands" according to certificate No. entrepreneurial activities and may cause losses or damage the business reputation of other economic entities and are unfair competition.

Please note: the actions aimed at registering a well-known designation as a trademark are not considered by the courts as acts of unfair competition, if this is not associated with any actions of the newly appeared copyright holder aimed at restricting other manufacturers, sellers in the use of the designation.

Example 7

Collapse Show

Since 1992, the Computer Technologies Society has been using the name "Censor" as a designation for the hardware and software complex. In 2005, two former employees of this society founded the company Technotronics, on behalf of which an application was filed for the registration of the trademark Censor in the same year. At the same time, both companies were competitors in the market for the production and sale of equipment for centralized control and protection of objects of telecommunication networks and cable facilities, as well as the development and improvement software centralized control systems (classes 09 and 42 of the Nice Classification).

After the registration of the trademark, the right holder informed the buyers of APK Censor that trademark"Censor" can only be used to refer to products of the Technotronics company.

The Computer Technologies Society filed a complaint with the antimonopoly body about unfair competition. By the decision of the antimonopoly authority, the company's actions related to the acquisition and use of exclusive rights to the Censor trademark under certificate No. 302270 for classes 09 and 42 of the Nice Classification were recognized as unfair competition.

Arbitration courts canceled the decision of the antimonopoly authority as .

The judges proceeded from the absence of signs of unfair competition in the actions of the Technotronics company. The priority rights in relation to the trademark were acquired legally, the designation did not previously have legal protection, there were no obstacles for a competitor to file an application for registration of similar trademarks, as well as actions to restrict other manufacturers from using the trademark.

The fact that the Technotronics company sought to gain advantages over competitors as a result of the use of exclusive rights to this mark, the courts recognized, but immediately indicated that this “... in itself does not indicate that these actions were carried out solely with the aim of ousting other manufacturers, causing damage to them. These manufacturers retain the opportunity to acquire the right to use a trademark registered by Technotronics on the basis of a license agreement or register their own trademark.” The Technotronics Company is the manufacturer of the APK Censor. There was no evidence that his trademark registration actions were aimed solely at causing harm to the Computer Technologies Society.

Among other things, the courts came to the conclusion that the decision of the antimonopoly authority violates the rights and legitimate interests of the Technotronics company in the business and other fields, which creates a real threat of the company losing exclusive property rights to the trademark.

Providing legal protection trademark may be contested and declared invalid in whole or in part during the entire period of validity of legal protection, if the actions of the right holder related to the state registration of the trademark are recognized in in due course abuse of the right or unfair competition (clause 6, clause 2, article 1512 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). A person whose rights have been violated by an act of unfair competition may file an objection to the granting of legal protection to a trademark, if the actions for its state registration recognized. The objection is accompanied by a decision of the antimonopoly authority on the violation by the right holder of the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 14 of Law No. 135-FZ (if such a decision exists). Rospatent, having received the appropriate objection and decision, invalidates the granting of legal protection to the trademark.

If there is no decision of the antimonopoly authority, Rospatent has fewer grounds to invalidate the granting of legal protection to a trademark. But the refusal of Rospatent can be appealed in court. When considering a case, the court has the right, on its own initiative, based on the existing factual circumstances, to recognize the actions of a person for registering a trademark as abuse of the right or unfair competition (based on the provisions of Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, the court decides to invalidate the decision of Rospatent and to oblige it to cancel the registration of the corresponding one.

Example 8

Collapse Show

Continue reading the article in the next issue.

Footnotes

Collapse Show

Unfair competition in the commodity market. Forms of unfair competition

Fair and unfair competition in the commodity market

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents

Basic concepts

If there is no competition

Forms of unfair competition

Distribution of false, inaccurate or distorted information that may cause losses to an economic entity or damage its business reputation

Incorrect comparison by an economic entity of goods produced or sold by it with goods produced or sold by other economic entities

Misrepresentation in relation to the nature, method and place of production, consumer properties, quality and quantity of goods or in relation to its producers

Sale, exchange or other introduction into circulation of goods, if the results of intellectual activity and equivalent means of individualization of a legal entity, means of individualization of products, works, services were illegally used

Illegal receipt, use, disclosure of information constituting a commercial, official or other secret protected by law

Acquisition and use of the exclusive right to means of individualization of a legal entity, means of individualization of products, works or services

Footnotes