The court's decision. Railways vs Apple
Last week, the USAA, as a court of first instance, ruled in the case on the claim of Russian Railways against Apple Inc.
If I am not mistaken, this case is noteworthy in that it is the first trial in the Russian Federation regarding the content of mobile application stores for the violation of exclusive rights.
Let me remind the essence of the claims Railways:
')
In the App Store, the developer Alexey Sirotkin published a paid mobile application for calculating the cost of transporting cargo by rail “RZD-tariff” , the icon of which contained an image that is simultaneously registered trademark of Russian Railways and the company's logo (this was written in detail earlier here and here ).
At RZD, no one received the right to use this trademark as a graphic element of the icon of this application. Accordingly, the company considered that its exclusive rights were violated (especially since the application is paid, therefore, generates revenue for both the developer and Apple), so it decided to deal with the violation found in court.
The content of the claims of Railways:
1. recognize as infringement of the exclusive rights of JSC Russian Railways on the placement by Apple on the website www.apple.ru of the Russian Railways trademarks ( first , second and third )
2. prohibit Apple from using the specified trademarks on www.apple.ru without the consent of Russian Railways
3. publish the decision of the court on the violation in the periodical publication - the journal “Intellectual Property. Industrial Property
4. to recover from Apple compensation for violation of the exclusive rights of Russian Railways to trademarks in the amount of 2,000,000 rubles. and costs of state duty in the amount of 49 000 rubles.
A court ruling dated December 17, 2013 accepted Russian Railways’s refusal of a claim in part of the requirement to oblige Apple to remove the image of the Russian Railways trademarks from www.apple.ru , and the proceedings in this part were discontinued.
How events developed:
August 7, 2012 - representatives of Russian Railways conducted a notarial inspection of the App Store website and identified the problematic application.
January 14, 2013 - Railways filed a lawsuit in court
January 15, 2013 - RZD published a press release with this news, and Apple removed the controversial application from the site.
January 17, 2013 - the application returned to the page with the already updated icon
February 6, 2013 - during the trial, Apple representatives asked the court to postpone the hearing for a couple of months (to form a clear position). Russian Railways lawyers did not object to this, so the court appointed the main hearing on April 4, 2013.
February 8, 2013 - a letter of complaint from Russian Railways reached Apple's Legal Department
April 4, 2013 - the court announced that the court hearing was postponed due to the involvement of Alexey Sirotkin (application developer) as a third party in the case.
May 22, 2013 - during the trial, the court found that it is necessary to involve iTunes SARL as the operator of the App Store platform in the process.
November 26, 2013 - the court granted the petition of Apple and iTunes SARL to postpone the hearing, because companies needed to prepare legal positions on Russian Railways’s objections to the Apple review (Apple received these documents only on the eve of the meeting, and did not receive iTunes Sarl at all)
December 17, 2013 - in court, representatives of Apple and iTunes SARL provided so many documents for initiation, that representatives of Russian Railways filed a motion to postpone the meeting due to the large amount of additional documents
February 5, 2014 - the court denied the Russian Railways to satisfy the claims
February 11, 2014 - The full text of the judgment is published.
What guided Railways, filing a lawsuit:
Judging by the text of the court decision, in 2012, representatives of Russian Railways on the App Store discovered the specified mobile application, the icon of which contained the Russian Railways logo. Russian Railways did not give any permission to Sirotkin (as the author and copyright holder of the mobile application) to use the company logo as a graphic element of the application icon.
Here we turn to the text of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
Consequently, on the basis of the norms of the current legislation and the fact that the application used Russian Railways trademarks, the company made the correct conclusion that there is a fact of violation of its exclusive rights to the trademarks belonging to it. To fix the fact of the violation, representatives of the company on August 7, 2012 conducted an inspection of the App Store site in a notarial manner, which resulted in the inspection report. Subsequently, the Russian Railways referred to it as evidence that a violation had occurred.
I note that at the present time, the absolute majority of top mobile app stores review claims from copyright holders regarding content. In principle, RZD was enough to send such a complaint to the App Store administration with a request to eliminate the violation of exclusive rights. I have no doubt that, in view of the obviousness of the violation, this issue would have been resolved shortly out of court.
But, apparently, RZD wanted just an exemplary trial ( who knows, maybe their neighbors ’laurels didn’t rest in terms of their field of activity - the Swiss SBB obtained in court a compensation of 21,400,000 US dollars from Apple - and Domestic Rails also decided tocut dough get their share of compensation from the budget pie of Americans ).
Well, they got it. But not at all with the result they expected.
January 14, 2013 Railways filed a lawsuit in court. In support of the claim the following aspects were indicated:
1. The plaintiff became aware of a violation of his exclusive rights on the website www.apple.ru , in the online store App Store, by placing an image identical to the trademark of the plaintiff <...>, while offering to sell and sell the program <... > RZD-tariff without the consent of the plaintiff.
2. The defendant independently initiated the transfer of information violating the exclusive rights of the plaintiff, <...> placing the “Russian Railways Tariff” Program in the online App Store, on the company's resource www.apple.ru (because the domain name is apple.ru Registered on October 13, 1996 in the name of Apple Inc.).
3. Without denying the fact that the developer of the Russian Railways Tariff program is citizen Alexei Sirotkin, the plaintiff believes that the domain administrator independently determines the procedure for its use and is responsible for violating the rights of third parties when using the domain name (site).
4. According to the plaintiff, the creation of an effective set of measures aimed at preventing violations of the rights of third parties is not a right, but the responsibility of the owner of the Internet resource.
5. The defendant had the opportunity to independently control, change (require changes) the content (integrity) of the hosted application.
6. For each purchase (download) of the “Russian Railways Tariff” program that violates the claimant’s intellectual property, the respondent received 30% of its value.
7. Apple Inc. with a high degree of probability, it could and should have been aware of the exclusive rights of the claimant to the image of the Russian Railways while taking minimal measures aimed at checking its holder.
And now we begin to deal with the position of the plaintiff and find out what he was wrong .
1. In the App Store, a specific application was placed an image identical to the TZ RZD without obtaining their consent / permission to do so.
It was really a violation of the exclusive rights of Russian Railways to their TK. See above text from GK, why this is so.
2. Apple should be held accountable for the fact that the claimant revealed a violation of his rights on the website www.apple.ru .
Lolshto? The plaintiff in his statement indicates that he became aware of the violation of his exclusive rights on the website www. apple ru , and at the same time, the documents submitted by the claimant contain information that the App Store is available at https: / itunes.apple. com / ru / genre / mobile-software-applications / id36? mt = 8. Evidence that the specified address is related to the domain apple.ru or to the site www.apple.ru , was not submitted to the court.
3. According to Russian Railways, the domain administrator independently determines the procedure for its use and is responsible for the violation of the rights of third parties when using a domain name (website).
Considering this case, the court noted that the administration of the respondent of the domain name apple.ru by the defendant cannot indicate that the defendant is the operator of one or another Internet site for which the corresponding domain name is used, or the person responsible for the functioning of the Internet site under this domain name. by name.
(as it turns out later, the operator of the iTunes platform, available on the third-level domain of itunes.com , is not Apple at all, but iTunes SARL)
4. According to RZD, the creation of an effective set of measures aimed at preventing violations of the rights of third parties is not a right, but the responsibility of the owner of the Internet resource.
Such obligations in the current legislation is not provided.
And here we again return to the text of the Civil Code
In this case, Apple (as well as iTunes SARL) will just be recognized as an information intermediary. Therefore, Apple did not know and should not have known about this violation. And since there was no written request from the Russian Railways before the trial, Apple in no way violated its obligations to take the necessary measures to stop the violation of intellectual property rights.
Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide the court with evidence that the App Store operator or the defendant may have, and in fact have the ability to verify the presence or absence of all possible violations of the intellectual rights of third parties by all applications published by developers.
Accordingly, this argument of Russian Railways is erroneous.
4. Apple independently initiated the transfer of information that violates the exclusive rights of the plaintiff, placing the application in the App Store on the company's website www.apple.ru .
On this point, too, everything is already stated above. See the explanation on the site apple.ru and information broker.
I will only add that the court accepted the defendant’s argument that after the developer decides to download the application, he lays out the application himself in the App Store for sale to end users.
5. The defendant had the opportunity to independently control, change (require changes) the content (integrity) of the hosted application.
I wonder what exactly this opportunity, according to Russian Railways, was expressed by Apple?
As an information broker, Apple is not liable, because I did not know and should not have known that the use of this icon in the application is an illegal use.
In addition, when signing a licensing agreement with Apple for the application developer to publish it on the App Store, Apple Sirotkin is committed to ensuring that for the purpose of using Apple software and any Apple services, its application will not violate third-party intellectual rights, including on trademarks, and that he, as a developer, will be liable for possible violations of the rights of third parties if his application violates the rights of third parties (clause 6.2 of annex 2 to the license agreement).
Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that the defendant or iTunes SARL participated in the design process of the application or its content.
6. For each purchase (download) of the “Russian Railways Tariff” program, the respondent received 30% of its value.
The plaintiff did not prove the fact that the defendant knew or should have known about the existence of the violation. As soon as the defendant became aware of the fact of the violation (and he became aware only after filing a lawsuit in court), they immediately took steps to remove the application from the store until the violations were corrected. As soon as they were eliminated, the application again became available in the store for purchase.
Therefore, the fact that Apple received income from an application that violates exclusive rights cannot be taken into account due to the nature of Apple’s responsibility as an information broker.
(and even if it was for this aspect that the proceedings were conducted in the USA, then such an argument is very difficult to prove)
7. Apple Inc. with a high degree of probability, it could and should have been aware of the exclusive rights of the claimant to the image of the Russian Railways while taking minimal measures aimed at checking its holder.
The fact that the claimant has a well-known trademark cannot serve as an argument in favor of the fact that the defendant, with a high degree of probability, could and should have known that the claimant had the corresponding exclusive rights.
Evidence that the defendant, when checking the mobile application, could and should have known that RZD had the specified rights, was not presented by the plaintiff (which has already been used for the account).
And what have iTunes SARL?
And despite the fact that Apple has implemented the following scheme for the functioning of its stor:
Apple is the administrator of the domain name apple.com. The iTunes platform is available at www.apple.com/ru/itunes , and the App Store at itunes.apple.com/ru/genre/mobile-software-applications/id36?mt=8 .
ITunes SARL is a network provider of the iTunes platform and its App Store section for hosting applications. At the same time, iTunes SARL itself does not develop applications and is not their owner or licensee.
But at the same time, she is a commission agent for developers who publish in the application's app, for the purpose of distributing the latter.
Apple, under the terms of the license agreement, provides the developer with standard software tools, allowing him to create his own application. Once submitted by the developer, the application is checked for compliance with the general requirements according to the rules of the App Store and then published in this store. Neither Apple nor iTunes SARL becomes the rights holders and do not acquire any rights with respect to such applications (but they have the right to remove applications from the store).
It is precisely because iTunes SARL is the operator of the App Store platform, and it took to involve this company in the process as a third party.
What is the result:
from the text of the judgment
In general,they came to the wrong side of the wrong respondent with their own claim. It was necessary to go to the developer.
(although of course, with a [successful] trial with the developer and PR for Roads, it would have been completely different, and in the case of a judicial victory, it would hardly be possible to give 2 compensation)
What's next:
One can only assume:
1. Russian Railways will not calm down and will go to the Nine with its appeal.
2. Russian Railways will draw conclusions from the court’s decision and, cleverly, will end the case (but state its claim to the developer)
3. Russian Railways will draw conclusions from the court’s decision and, cleverly, will end the case (and will not file any claims against the developer)
In any case, the wait is not long. Let's see how this whole story ends.
And to all other potential plaintiffs advice: if you decide to sue the administration of a stor, do not be lazy to deduct all the rights / obligations / guarantees / disclaimers of the stor agreements - as a rule, they quite clearly delimit the amount of responsibility for claims of third parties (including rights holders) - and with regard to claims in respect of intellectual property, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the administrations of such sites are legally quite invulnerable (but the developers - on the contrary).
Therefore, in order not to become a losing party to such a legal circus, thoroughly investigate first the situation itself and only then go with a lawsuit to the court.
If I am not mistaken, this case is noteworthy in that it is the first trial in the Russian Federation regarding the content of mobile application stores for the violation of exclusive rights.
Let me remind the essence of the claims Railways:
')
In the App Store, the developer Alexey Sirotkin published a paid mobile application for calculating the cost of transporting cargo by rail “RZD-tariff” , the icon of which contained an image that is simultaneously registered trademark of Russian Railways and the company's logo (this was written in detail earlier here and here ).
At RZD, no one received the right to use this trademark as a graphic element of the icon of this application. Accordingly, the company considered that its exclusive rights were violated (especially since the application is paid, therefore, generates revenue for both the developer and Apple), so it decided to deal with the violation found in court.
The content of the claims of Railways:
1. recognize as infringement of the exclusive rights of JSC Russian Railways on the placement by Apple on the website www.apple.ru of the Russian Railways trademarks ( first , second and third )
2. prohibit Apple from using the specified trademarks on www.apple.ru without the consent of Russian Railways
3. publish the decision of the court on the violation in the periodical publication - the journal “Intellectual Property. Industrial Property
4. to recover from Apple compensation for violation of the exclusive rights of Russian Railways to trademarks in the amount of 2,000,000 rubles. and costs of state duty in the amount of 49 000 rubles.
A court ruling dated December 17, 2013 accepted Russian Railways’s refusal of a claim in part of the requirement to oblige Apple to remove the image of the Russian Railways trademarks from www.apple.ru , and the proceedings in this part were discontinued.
How events developed:
August 7, 2012 - representatives of Russian Railways conducted a notarial inspection of the App Store website and identified the problematic application.
January 14, 2013 - Railways filed a lawsuit in court
January 15, 2013 - RZD published a press release with this news, and Apple removed the controversial application from the site.
January 17, 2013 - the application returned to the page with the already updated icon
February 6, 2013 - during the trial, Apple representatives asked the court to postpone the hearing for a couple of months (to form a clear position). Russian Railways lawyers did not object to this, so the court appointed the main hearing on April 4, 2013.
February 8, 2013 - a letter of complaint from Russian Railways reached Apple's Legal Department
April 4, 2013 - the court announced that the court hearing was postponed due to the involvement of Alexey Sirotkin (application developer) as a third party in the case.
May 22, 2013 - during the trial, the court found that it is necessary to involve iTunes SARL as the operator of the App Store platform in the process.
November 26, 2013 - the court granted the petition of Apple and iTunes SARL to postpone the hearing, because companies needed to prepare legal positions on Russian Railways’s objections to the Apple review (Apple received these documents only on the eve of the meeting, and did not receive iTunes Sarl at all)
December 17, 2013 - in court, representatives of Apple and iTunes SARL provided so many documents for initiation, that representatives of Russian Railways filed a motion to postpone the meeting due to the large amount of additional documents
February 5, 2014 - the court denied the Russian Railways to satisfy the claims
February 11, 2014 - The full text of the judgment is published.
What guided Railways, filing a lawsuit:
Judging by the text of the court decision, in 2012, representatives of Russian Railways on the App Store discovered the specified mobile application, the icon of which contained the Russian Railways logo. Russian Railways did not give any permission to Sirotkin (as the author and copyright holder of the mobile application) to use the company logo as a graphic element of the application icon.
Here we turn to the text of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
Article 1484. Exclusive Right to a Trademark
1. A person in whose name a trademark is registered (the copyright holder) has the exclusive right to use the trademark in accordance with article 1229 of this Code in any manner not contrary to the law (exclusive right to a trademark), including the methods specified in paragraph 2 of this articles. The right holder may dispose of the exclusive right to the trademark.
3. No one has the right to use, without the permission of the copyright holder, designations similar to its trademark in relation to goods for which the trademark has been individualized, or similar goods, if such use creates the likelihood of confusion.
Article 1229. Exclusive Right
The right holder may, at its discretion, authorize or prohibit other persons to use the result of intellectual activity or means of individualization. The absence of a prohibition is not considered consent (permission).
Consequently, on the basis of the norms of the current legislation and the fact that the application used Russian Railways trademarks, the company made the correct conclusion that there is a fact of violation of its exclusive rights to the trademarks belonging to it. To fix the fact of the violation, representatives of the company on August 7, 2012 conducted an inspection of the App Store site in a notarial manner, which resulted in the inspection report. Subsequently, the Russian Railways referred to it as evidence that a violation had occurred.
I note that at the present time, the absolute majority of top mobile app stores review claims from copyright holders regarding content. In principle, RZD was enough to send such a complaint to the App Store administration with a request to eliminate the violation of exclusive rights. I have no doubt that, in view of the obviousness of the violation, this issue would have been resolved shortly out of court.
But, apparently, RZD wanted just an exemplary trial ( who knows, maybe their neighbors ’laurels didn’t rest in terms of their field of activity - the Swiss SBB obtained in court a compensation of 21,400,000 US dollars from Apple - and Domestic Rails also decided to
Well, they got it. But not at all with the result they expected.
January 14, 2013 Railways filed a lawsuit in court. In support of the claim the following aspects were indicated:
1. The plaintiff became aware of a violation of his exclusive rights on the website www.apple.ru , in the online store App Store, by placing an image identical to the trademark of the plaintiff <...>, while offering to sell and sell the program <... > RZD-tariff without the consent of the plaintiff.
2. The defendant independently initiated the transfer of information violating the exclusive rights of the plaintiff, <...> placing the “Russian Railways Tariff” Program in the online App Store, on the company's resource www.apple.ru (because the domain name is apple.ru Registered on October 13, 1996 in the name of Apple Inc.).
3. Without denying the fact that the developer of the Russian Railways Tariff program is citizen Alexei Sirotkin, the plaintiff believes that the domain administrator independently determines the procedure for its use and is responsible for violating the rights of third parties when using the domain name (site).
4. According to the plaintiff, the creation of an effective set of measures aimed at preventing violations of the rights of third parties is not a right, but the responsibility of the owner of the Internet resource.
5. The defendant had the opportunity to independently control, change (require changes) the content (integrity) of the hosted application.
6. For each purchase (download) of the “Russian Railways Tariff” program that violates the claimant’s intellectual property, the respondent received 30% of its value.
7. Apple Inc. with a high degree of probability, it could and should have been aware of the exclusive rights of the claimant to the image of the Russian Railways while taking minimal measures aimed at checking its holder.
And now we begin to deal with the position of the plaintiff and find out what he was wrong .
1. In the App Store, a specific application was placed an image identical to the TZ RZD without obtaining their consent / permission to do so.
It was really a violation of the exclusive rights of Russian Railways to their TK. See above text from GK, why this is so.
2. Apple should be held accountable for the fact that the claimant revealed a violation of his rights on the website www.apple.ru .
Lolshto? The plaintiff in his statement indicates that he became aware of the violation of his exclusive rights on the website www. apple ru , and at the same time, the documents submitted by the claimant contain information that the App Store is available at https: / itunes.apple. com / ru / genre / mobile-software-applications / id36? mt = 8. Evidence that the specified address is related to the domain apple.ru or to the site www.apple.ru , was not submitted to the court.
3. According to Russian Railways, the domain administrator independently determines the procedure for its use and is responsible for the violation of the rights of third parties when using a domain name (website).
Considering this case, the court noted that the administration of the respondent of the domain name apple.ru by the defendant cannot indicate that the defendant is the operator of one or another Internet site for which the corresponding domain name is used, or the person responsible for the functioning of the Internet site under this domain name. by name.
(as it turns out later, the operator of the iTunes platform, available on the third-level domain of itunes.com , is not Apple at all, but iTunes SARL)
4. According to RZD, the creation of an effective set of measures aimed at preventing violations of the rights of third parties is not a right, but the responsibility of the owner of the Internet resource.
Such obligations in the current legislation is not provided.
And here we again return to the text of the Civil Code
Article 1253.1. Features of responsibility of the information intermediary
1. A person transferring material in an information and telecommunication network, including the Internet, a person providing the opportunity to place material or information necessary to receive it using the information and telecommunication network, a person providing access to the material in this network, - the information intermediary - is responsible for the violation of intellectual rights in the information and telecommunications network on the general grounds provided by this Code, chii fault with the specifications set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article.
3. The information intermediary that provides the possibility of placing the material in the information and telecommunications network is not responsible for intellectual property infringement resulting from the placement of material in the information and telecommunications network by a third party or at his instruction, while the information intermediary observes the following conditions:
1) he did not know and should not have known that the use of the relevant result of intellectual activity or means of individualization contained in such material is illegal;
2) he, in case of receipt in writing of a copyright owner's statement on violation of intellectual rights with indication of the website page and (or) network address on the Internet on which such material is posted, took necessary and sufficient measures to stop the violation of intellectual rights in a timely manner. The list of necessary and sufficient measures and the procedure for their implementation may be established by law.
In this case, Apple (as well as iTunes SARL) will just be recognized as an information intermediary. Therefore, Apple did not know and should not have known about this violation. And since there was no written request from the Russian Railways before the trial, Apple in no way violated its obligations to take the necessary measures to stop the violation of intellectual property rights.
Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide the court with evidence that the App Store operator or the defendant may have, and in fact have the ability to verify the presence or absence of all possible violations of the intellectual rights of third parties by all applications published by developers.
Accordingly, this argument of Russian Railways is erroneous.
4. Apple independently initiated the transfer of information that violates the exclusive rights of the plaintiff, placing the application in the App Store on the company's website www.apple.ru .
On this point, too, everything is already stated above. See the explanation on the site apple.ru and information broker.
I will only add that the court accepted the defendant’s argument that after the developer decides to download the application, he lays out the application himself in the App Store for sale to end users.
5. The defendant had the opportunity to independently control, change (require changes) the content (integrity) of the hosted application.
I wonder what exactly this opportunity, according to Russian Railways, was expressed by Apple?
As an information broker, Apple is not liable, because I did not know and should not have known that the use of this icon in the application is an illegal use.
In addition, when signing a licensing agreement with Apple for the application developer to publish it on the App Store, Apple Sirotkin is committed to ensuring that for the purpose of using Apple software and any Apple services, its application will not violate third-party intellectual rights, including on trademarks, and that he, as a developer, will be liable for possible violations of the rights of third parties if his application violates the rights of third parties (clause 6.2 of annex 2 to the license agreement).
Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that the defendant or iTunes SARL participated in the design process of the application or its content.
6. For each purchase (download) of the “Russian Railways Tariff” program, the respondent received 30% of its value.
The plaintiff did not prove the fact that the defendant knew or should have known about the existence of the violation. As soon as the defendant became aware of the fact of the violation (and he became aware only after filing a lawsuit in court), they immediately took steps to remove the application from the store until the violations were corrected. As soon as they were eliminated, the application again became available in the store for purchase.
Therefore, the fact that Apple received income from an application that violates exclusive rights cannot be taken into account due to the nature of Apple’s responsibility as an information broker.
(and even if it was for this aspect that the proceedings were conducted in the USA, then such an argument is very difficult to prove)
7. Apple Inc. with a high degree of probability, it could and should have been aware of the exclusive rights of the claimant to the image of the Russian Railways while taking minimal measures aimed at checking its holder.
The fact that the claimant has a well-known trademark cannot serve as an argument in favor of the fact that the defendant, with a high degree of probability, could and should have known that the claimant had the corresponding exclusive rights.
Evidence that the defendant, when checking the mobile application, could and should have known that RZD had the specified rights, was not presented by the plaintiff (which has already been used for the account).
And what have iTunes SARL?
And despite the fact that Apple has implemented the following scheme for the functioning of its stor:
Apple is the administrator of the domain name apple.com. The iTunes platform is available at www.apple.com/ru/itunes , and the App Store at itunes.apple.com/ru/genre/mobile-software-applications/id36?mt=8 .
ITunes SARL is a network provider of the iTunes platform and its App Store section for hosting applications. At the same time, iTunes SARL itself does not develop applications and is not their owner or licensee.
But at the same time, she is a commission agent for developers who publish in the application's app, for the purpose of distributing the latter.
Apple, under the terms of the license agreement, provides the developer with standard software tools, allowing him to create his own application. Once submitted by the developer, the application is checked for compliance with the general requirements according to the rules of the App Store and then published in this store. Neither Apple nor iTunes SARL becomes the rights holders and do not acquire any rights with respect to such applications (but they have the right to remove applications from the store).
It is precisely because iTunes SARL is the operator of the App Store platform, and it took to involve this company in the process as a third party.
What is the result:
from the text of the judgment
The court finds that the defendant is unproved that the defendant is the violator of the exclusive rights of the claimant to trademarks, in connection with which, the claim in full, including in the part of the claim for recovery of compensation, must be rejected.
In accordance with Art. 110 Of the APC RF the costs of paying the state fee are charged to the plaintiff.
I DECIDED:
The statement of claim of JSC “Russian Railways” to leave without satisfaction.
Return to the plaintiff from the federal budget paid for the payment order â„– 865 dated December 24, 2012 state fee in the amount of 8 000 RUB.
The decision may be appealed within a month to the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal.
In general,
(although of course, with a [successful] trial with the developer and PR for Roads, it would have been completely different, and in the case of a judicial victory, it would hardly be possible to give 2 compensation)
What's next:
One can only assume:
1. Russian Railways will not calm down and will go to the Nine with its appeal.
2. Russian Railways will draw conclusions from the court’s decision and, cleverly, will end the case (but state its claim to the developer)
3. Russian Railways will draw conclusions from the court’s decision and, cleverly, will end the case (and will not file any claims against the developer)
In any case, the wait is not long. Let's see how this whole story ends.
And to all other potential plaintiffs advice: if you decide to sue the administration of a stor, do not be lazy to deduct all the rights / obligations / guarantees / disclaimers of the stor agreements - as a rule, they quite clearly delimit the amount of responsibility for claims of third parties (including rights holders) - and with regard to claims in respect of intellectual property, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the administrations of such sites are legally quite invulnerable (but the developers - on the contrary).
Therefore, in order not to become a losing party to such a legal circus, thoroughly investigate first the situation itself and only then go with a lawsuit to the court.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/213361/
All Articles