The Customs Services went to the court with a claim to call to account a Company with limited responsibility for the administrative offence by the art. 14.10 of the Code of administrative offences.

     During the control, initiated by a joint stock company application, by officers of the Central Operative Customs it was found that the Company Ltd. registered goods namely different sorts of lemonade under the trademark LORINA. Accordingly to the trademark certificate the right holder of the trademark LORINA at the Russian territory is the joint […]

Foreign producers of car details did not succeed in parallel importation ban without outside help.

     Yesterday the Arbitration Court of Moscow rejected the claim of Kayaba Kogyo Kabushiki Company, producer of car shock absorbers, against OOO Avtologistika, non official car details importer. July, the 24th, 2008 trademarks Kayaba and KYB were introduced to the Customs register of intellectual property objects. In October 2008 Avtologistika tried to import to Russia […]

Basic international treaties.

1.  European Directive on IP Rights Enforcement.2.  TRIPS agreement3.  The Doha Declaration4.  Resolution 486 of the ONA Commission (Columbia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia) 5.  Free trade agreement of the USA and Australia6.  Free trade agreement of the USA and Morocco7.  Free trade agreement of the USA and Singapore8.  The Rome Treaty 9.  The Harmonization protocol […]

World leaders on parallel importation

     In Canada and in Japan the doctrine stands on the point that the parallel importation meets customers’ interest because neither right holders nor their exclusive distributors may fix high prices (i.e. it is sort of antitrust activity). In China the parallel import authorization is rather a legislation deficiency because there are no legal acts […]

The parallel import history.

     The year 1974 is considered to get the birth to the term of parallel import. The European Court delivered the first judgment on the case of Centrafarm BV et Adriaan de Peijper vs. Sterling Drug Inc. The court declared that the parallel import ban of the product which included patented invention does not satisfy […]