1. The subject of the dispute is the claim for early termination of the certificate for a trademark for goods and services due to its non-use for five years.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff failed to prove the fact that the defendant did not use the trademark for goods and services for five years, but the defendant provided evidence of the use of the trademark, in particular, through a license agreement with another company that produces and sells products under this trademark; the court also took into account the conclusion of the examination, according to which the verbal element of the trademark is dominant, and its use without the figurative element does not change the essence of the mark; the court noted that the product “vodka” is included in the list of goods to which legal protection applies, and the application of the mark to this product is lawful; the court rejected the conclusion of the plaintiff’s expert, as it was less substantiated and related to issues that are not the subject of the dispute. The court applied the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the five-year period of non-use of a trademark does not start anew with a change of owner.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
