Tweet
CASSATION COURT OF ARMENIA IS CONSIDERING CLAIM ON PRIORITY OF BI LINE TRADEMARK
ArmInfo
2008-06-30 23:38:00
The Cassation Court of Armenia is considering the claim on the priority
of BI LINE trademark. As lawyer of BI LINE company, one of the largest
enterprises engaged in sale and service of computer equipment, Hayk
Haroutyunyan told ArmInfo correspondent, a preliminary trial was
held at the Cassation Court of Armenia, which covered the history
of the court proceeding at previous instances. To note, BI LINE also
applied to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. "We hope
that the case will be completed in Armenia. We are sure of this as
preference should be given to those who were the first to register
intellectual property, this is fixed in the Constitution of Armenia",
Haroutyunyan noted.
To recall, in August 2007 BI LINE company filed a claim against
VimpelCom OJSC and ArmenTel CJSC (VimpelCom's branch in Armenia)
and disputed the legitimacy of using the Beeline brand in Armenia by
VimpelCom and ArmenTel. BI LINE stated that the brand Beeline and
BI LINE (registered in 1996) are alike to the extent that they can
be confused.
Along with consideration of the case at the Economic Court of Armenia,
in its turn, VimpelCom filed a claim to the RA Intellectual Property
Agency and denied BI LINE's argument about the similarity of the
trademarks. Under these circumstances, BI LINE withdrew its claim
against VimpelCom.
"Otherwise, the consideration of our case at the Economic Court
would have been suspended until completion of proceedings at the
Agency. Though, in fact, of the two similar claims the one filed
earlier should have been considered at first", Haroutyunyan said.
On December 7, the Economic Court of Armenia rejected BI LINE's claim.
"Being the claimant, BI LINE received no invitation to the court, and
in this case the verdict should have had no force, strictly speaking",
Haroutyunyan said.
After the decision of the Economic Court, BI LINE filed a claim to the
Cassation Court. "This body was the higher authority for cases of the
Economic Court (before its abolition). However, there we were denied
the consideration of the case, therefore we addressed the claim to the
Court of Appeal. On June 6, the court confirmed our claim's rejection
published by the Economic Court", Haroutyunyan recalled. He specified
that along with consideration of the case at the Court of Appeal,
BI LINE continued gaining consideration of the case at the Cassation
Court approved by the law as the higher authority for the Economic
Court. According to Haroutyunyan, the claim was accepted a month ago,
and the company resumed its claims against VimpelCom OJSC.
ArmInfo
2008-06-30 23:38:00
The Cassation Court of Armenia is considering the claim on the priority
of BI LINE trademark. As lawyer of BI LINE company, one of the largest
enterprises engaged in sale and service of computer equipment, Hayk
Haroutyunyan told ArmInfo correspondent, a preliminary trial was
held at the Cassation Court of Armenia, which covered the history
of the court proceeding at previous instances. To note, BI LINE also
applied to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. "We hope
that the case will be completed in Armenia. We are sure of this as
preference should be given to those who were the first to register
intellectual property, this is fixed in the Constitution of Armenia",
Haroutyunyan noted.
To recall, in August 2007 BI LINE company filed a claim against
VimpelCom OJSC and ArmenTel CJSC (VimpelCom's branch in Armenia)
and disputed the legitimacy of using the Beeline brand in Armenia by
VimpelCom and ArmenTel. BI LINE stated that the brand Beeline and
BI LINE (registered in 1996) are alike to the extent that they can
be confused.
Along with consideration of the case at the Economic Court of Armenia,
in its turn, VimpelCom filed a claim to the RA Intellectual Property
Agency and denied BI LINE's argument about the similarity of the
trademarks. Under these circumstances, BI LINE withdrew its claim
against VimpelCom.
"Otherwise, the consideration of our case at the Economic Court
would have been suspended until completion of proceedings at the
Agency. Though, in fact, of the two similar claims the one filed
earlier should have been considered at first", Haroutyunyan said.
On December 7, the Economic Court of Armenia rejected BI LINE's claim.
"Being the claimant, BI LINE received no invitation to the court, and
in this case the verdict should have had no force, strictly speaking",
Haroutyunyan said.
After the decision of the Economic Court, BI LINE filed a claim to the
Cassation Court. "This body was the higher authority for cases of the
Economic Court (before its abolition). However, there we were denied
the consideration of the case, therefore we addressed the claim to the
Court of Appeal. On June 6, the court confirmed our claim's rejection
published by the Economic Court", Haroutyunyan recalled. He specified
that along with consideration of the case at the Court of Appeal,
BI LINE continued gaining consideration of the case at the Cassation
Court approved by the law as the higher authority for the Economic
Court. According to Haroutyunyan, the claim was accepted a month ago,
and the company resumed its claims against VimpelCom OJSC.