The legal basis for determining the threshold values of the notoriety level of a notorious trademark
(59-62)

More about authors
Batykov Ivan V. PhD in Sociology, Head of Sociological Expertise Laboratory
For read the full article, please, register or log in
Annotation:
Purpose: In the Russian legislation at the moment there are no clear criteria for the recognition of a trademark as notorious. International legal practice also uses different approaches to this problem. For this reason, the aim of the article is to define the threshold values for the indicator of trademark notoriety. Design/methodology/approach: The article uses two methodological approaches - generalization of decision-making practice and logical analysis of decision-making grounds. The results obtained in two independent ways (using logical analysis and statistical generalization of Rospatent practice) are consistent with each other, and this fact indicates the reliability and validity of the conclusions of both methods. Findings: Statistical analysis of the published decisions of Rospatent on the recognition of trademarks as notorious in Russian Federation showed that the empirical lower limit of notoriety level is 59%. It is not identical to the logical lower limit, which, according to judicial practice, can be significantly lower than 50%. However, the author recommends to consider the rule of simple majority - 50% + 1 vote as the most reasonable lower limit. It provides a reliable and objective conclusion about the prevalence of trademark awareness in a relevant consumer group. The obtained results allow proposing a change in the text of the Civil code of Russian Federation. Originality/value: The results obtained are important for the practice of judicial decision-making and can be used in court cases related to the definition of trademarks notoriety.
How to Cite:
Batykov I.V., (2019), THE LEGAL BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE THRESHOLD VALUES OF THE NOTORIETY LEVEL OF A NOTORIOUS TRADEMARK. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 2: 59-62.
Reference list:
. 27.08.2015 №602. 07.06.2017.
. ., . . // . 1972. . 3. . 142.
. . // : , , . 2018 (a). № 11. . 80-87.
. . // . 2018 (b). . 8. № 8A. . 52-60.
/ . . . . .: , 2000.
. 23.05.2018.
. ., . . // . 1995. . 4. . 35.
. . . 4- . .: . , 1868.
№ 52854/99 24.07.2003.
№3691/06 № 40-10573/04 18.07.2006.
№16912/11 № 40-73286/10 24.04.2012.
. № 40-73286/10 05.03.2011.
№ -269/2014 15.07.2014.
Dimple. BGH, GRUR 1985, 550-551.
Avon. BGH, GRUR 1991, 863-866.
Colston C., Galloway J. Modern Intellectual Property Law. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2010.
Mostert F. Well-Known and Famous Marks: Is Harmony Possible in the Global Village // Trademark Reporter. 1996. №1. P. 120.
Mostert F. Famous and well-known marks: An International Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: International Trademark Association, 2004.
Onishi H. Well-known trademarks: a comparative study of Japan and the EU. London: Routledge, 2015.
Shapley L., Grofman B. Optimizing group judgmental accuracy in the presence of interdependencies // Public Choice. 1984. №3. P. 329-343.
Sorkin R. D., West R., Robinson D. E. Group performance depends on the majority rule // Psychological Science. 1998. №6. P. 456-463.
Sorkin R. D., Hays C. J., West R. Signal-detection analysis of group decision making // Psychological Review. 2001. №1. P. 183-203.
Young P. Optimal Voting Rules // Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1995. №1. P. 53.