logo
This is an empty menu. Please make sure your menu has items.
Business Duty Officer

Recovery of expenses in cases of compensation for violation of exclusive rights

Recovery of expenses in cases of compensation for violation of exclusive rights

28 October, the Constitutional Court issued Decision No. 46-P in the case on the verification of the constitutionality of the ch. 1 Art. 110 APK RF. The position of the Constitutional Court concerned the procedure for the distribution of court expenses between persons, involved in the case.

The Constitutional Court received a case on the recovery of compensation for violation of exclusive rights to use trademarks. Also, the claims included the amount of legal expenses, incurred by the plaintiff.

While analyzing the case, the court of first instance reduced the amount of compensation below the minimum level (instead 10 thousand rubles was established compensation in the amount of 2,5 thousand rubles).

In reaching its decision, the court was guided by the following grounds::

  • The offense was committed for the first time;
  • An individual entrepreneur has a disabled minor child .

The defendant filed an application to recover from the plaintiff the legal costs of paying for the services of a representative and transportation costs in the total amount 34,8 thousands. of rubles, which was partially satisfied with the court's ruling, which was subsequently contested by the plaintiff.

In Decision No. 46-P, the Constitutional Court designated the reduction of compensation in this case as an exceptional measure, since a different legal regulation in respect of an individual entrepreneur could be fraught with depriving him of the opportunity to continue his business activities, but also an extremely negative impact on the life situation of the offender, as well as members of his family.

With regard to compensation for travel and representation costs, the court replied, that reducing the level of compensation doesn't detract from the fact, that the offence has been committed. The award of compensation to the defendant in this case may amount to an abuse of its procedural rights.

However, the provisions of h. 1 Art. 110 AIC was recognized by the Court as constitutional, however, he directed that the case be remitted for a new trial.

Other news

Share this info. Choose a social media!

pro bono consultation