PATENTUS protected trademark DRYDRY

Date: 26 February 2019

The Skandy Line company turned to PATENTUS team because of the violation of the rights of their trademark DRYDRY. Our client has been using his trademark since 2006, marking his range of products like antiperspirants, deodorants, etc.

ZAO NPO Himsintez (the defendant) is a manufacturer of products marked with the designation DRY CONTROL.

Our lawyer Tatyana Savinykh made a comparative analysis of the two symbols and found out the similarity between the Skandy Line trademark and the defendant's symbol. She also managed to prove that such labeling misleads the consumers, since they consider the PATENTUS client's products to be original and Himsintez products to be analogous.

However, during the trial it was stated that Himsintez uses on its packaging the registered trademark DRYCONTROL No. 571571, including in the 3rd and 5th classes of the Nice Classification (International Classification of Goods and Services). The defendant insisted that he has been using his own trademark and does not violate any rights of the plaintiff.

The head of the dispute resolution practice, Alexander Lebedev, and Tatyana managed to prove in the Arbitration Court that the defendant does not use his trademark, that it is a completely different unregistered designation. A trademark is used with some changes and it leads to a different perception of the trademark and this turns out to be a completely different designation and is supposed to be a violation of rights to the claimants trademark DRYDRY.

The court decided to satisfy the claims and to forbid Himsintez to use the symbol DRY CONTROL in relation to similar goods.

Thank You!