Solution of the problem, an example of judicial practice and plot

Solution of the problem, an example of judicial practice and plot

Closed Joint Stock Company "Areal" required by the limited liability company "Habitat" to stop infringement of the exclusive rights to its brand name. JSC "The area" referred to the fact that uses the brand name "Closed Joint-Stock Company" habitat "for seven years, and that under this name is widely known among consumers freight forwarding services of the Northwest region. Because of "habitat", created six months ago, is also engaged in freight forwarding activities in the region, many customers of CJSC "habitat" were disoriented. In particular, the address of JSC "Areal" received several complaints from users of services of "habitat". In addition, JSC "Areal" indicates that the cost heavily on advertising their brand name, the fruits of which wrongly uses of "habitat".

Ltd. "The area" has rejected the claim, saying that they used company name is not identical to the company name ZAO "habitat" because of a mismatch of the legal form of organizations. In addition, only in the directory "Best in St. Petersburg" mentions six different companies operating under the name "Habitat". In response to the claim has also been reported that the company "Areal" filed with Rospatent application for registration of word mark service "habitat" for freight forwarding services, in connection with which CJSC "habitat" will soon change its corporate name.

Disassemble the arguments of the parties. What should the court if the JSC "Areal" sue the prohibition of "habitat" used as part of a trade name the word "habitat"? What kind of consequences if the application of "habitat" for service mark registration "habitat" will be satisfied?