Influence of Unprotected Elements on the Decision to Register an Applied-for Designation as a Trade Mark (on the Example of Decisions of the Chamber of Patent Disputes)

The improvement of legislation and law enforcement practice in the field of intellectual property makes the research in this direction relevant. This is confirmed by the growing number of trademark applications. In these circumstances, it is important to identify the most optimal strategies for trademark registration, avoiding unnecessary delays in the process. This study reveals the key problems arising in the registration of trademarks related to the presence of unprotected elements and their impediment to registration. The subject of the study is the analysis of law enforcement practice of the Chamber of Patent Disputes in terms of application of subparagraphs 1–2 of paragraph 1 of Art. 1483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The object of the study is legal relations arising in relation to the legal protection of trade marks. Methodology. The methodological basis of the research consists of both general scientific and legal methods. General scientific methods, in particular, include comparison, abstraction, analysis and synthesis, analogy. Legal methods include formal-legal and comparative-legal methods. Keywords: trademark, means of individualisation, intellectual property, designation, grounds for refusal, non-protectability, distinctiveness, unprotected elements. The results of this work are: analysed the decisions of the Chamber for Patent Disputes, issued on the basis of the conclusions of the Board of the Chamber for Patent Disputes on the objections of applicants and interested parties in the conditions of refusal of registration as a trademark on the grounds of subparagraphs 1–2 of paragraph 1 of Art. 1483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation or on the impossibility of legal protection of such trademarks. General recommendations are also offered to prevent problematic situations identified in the course of analysing specific decisions of the Chamber of Patent Disputes. In practice, there is no uniformity in the application of the provisions of subparagraphs 1–2 of paragraph 1 of Article 1483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as each case is of a different nature. In addition, there is no reason to assume that certain decisions are made under comparable factual circumstances, thus the decision on each individual trademark is made on the basis of all the circumstances and documents relating to the application under consideration. Thus, this paper may serve as a practical guide for those persons who have expressed a desire to file for registration of their trademark and want to avoid problems caused by the difficulty of understanding the grounds under subparagraphs 1–2, paragraph 1, Article 1483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

1. Кузнецова И. Е. Лингвистическая экспертиза словесных обозначений // Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Труды института лингвистических исследований. – 2015. – № 3. – C. 670–682.

2. Насирова В. Н., Кириллова Т. С. Статус термина и общеупотребительная лексика // Актуальные проблемы гуманитарных и естественных наук. – 2016. – №4-6. – С. 43–44.

3. Новоселова Л. А. Право на товарный знак. – М. : Норма, 2023.

4. Рябец А. П. Правовая охрана товарных знаков в России: современное состояние и перспективы. – СПб., 2003.

5. Серебро С. А. Различительная способность товарных знаков // Проблемы науки. – 2015. – № 5 (35). – С. 83–86.