Tashkent, Uzbekistan (UzDaily.com) — The Arbitration Court of Crimea has ruled in favor of the Jizzakh Battery Plant in a lawsuit filed by Russian businessman Artyom Paliychuk, who contested the rights to the KUCH trademark. The decision was reported by Kommersant, citing arbitration records.

Paliychuk claimed that the plant was unlawfully using the KUCH automotive battery brand and demanded compensation of 257 million rubles (US$2.88 million or 37.4 billion soums).

However, representatives of the Uzbek enterprise argued that the plant had been using the trademark long before Paliychuk registered it in Russia. They also pointed out that the plaintiff himself had not actively used the brand.

The court established that as early as 2018, Paliychuk had engaged in negotiations with the Jizzakh Battery Plant regarding product supplies on behalf of the Russian company ARS Motors. As a result, the parties reached an agreement to supply KUCH batteries to Russia and Belarus.

At the time Paliychuk applied for trademark registration, he was already aware that the plant was using the brand, the court noted. His actions were deemed dishonest and aimed at extracting profit and securing compensation.

Furthermore, the court stated that granting legal protection to the trademark could hinder the plant’s ability to use it freely, potentially leading to financial losses and damaging the company’s business reputation. Consequently, Paliychuk’s claim was dismissed.

The case was initially reviewed in the spring of 2023, when the arbitration court found that the Jizzakh Battery Plant had supplied KamAZ with batteries worth 128.6 million rubles between 2019 and 2022, ruling this a violation of intellectual property rights.

As a result, the court initially ordered the plant to pay double compensation. Paliychuk also received 6.2 million rubles from ARS Motors as outstanding debt under a licensing agreement for selling batteries under the KUCH trademark.

However, the plant appealed the ruling. In November of the same year, the Intellectual Property Rights Court overturned the previous verdict and sent the case for reconsideration, taking into account the company’s arguments about Paliychuk’s bad faith.

Gennady Zolotov, head of the Expert Center at the Russian State Academy of Intellectual Property, commented on the situation, noting that cases of patent trolling are not uncommon. He also emphasized the possibility of challenging Paliychuk’s trademark registration with Rospatent.