RSS
Логотип
Баннер в шапке 1
Баннер в шапке 2

Autoaudiocenter

Company

Content

History

2023: JBL trial win in device design copying case

On December 6, 2023, it became known that the Russian supplier of acoustic systems Ural won the court against the American manufacturer of audio equipment Harman International Industries, a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics. The proceedings are related to the design of portable speakers of the JBL brand, the rights to which belong to Harman.

According to RBC, in September 2021, Harman sued AvtoAudioCenter LLC and Promostar LLC (manufacturer and distributor of Ural), accusing the company of copying the design of JBL speakers and illegal use of patented developments. It was alleged that the defendants used "recognizable features of JBL portable speakers to market [their products]." The American company asked the court to ban Ural from using its industrial samples No. 98697 and No. 97967 (both registered in the loudspeaker category), pay compensation in the amount of 3 million rubles and reimburse about 500 thousand rubles for legal costs and expenses.

Russian supplier of acoustic systems "Ural" won the court against the American manufacturer of audio equipment Harman International Industries

The Ural company in court rejected almost all the claims made. The Russian developer, in particular, said that Harman patents are registered in the "loudspeaker" class, and Ural speakers are "portable audio systems." In addition, the defendants disagreed with the accusations over copying the design, pointing out that 90% of portable speakers have a cylindrical shape. The Russian company also cited the results of a survey of the laboratory of sociological expertise of the Federal Research Sociological Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This study found that 91% of respondents can distinguish between columns of two brands, and 88% know that they have different manufacturers.

The Moscow Arbitration Court in the first instance in March 2022 refused to satisfy the requirements of Harman International Industries. The plaintiffs tried to challenge the decision in the appellate and cassation instances, but finally lost the case.[1]

Notes