Drivix Retail - Drivix

History

2023: Win in court against Harman in technology copying case

On September 28, 2023, the Intellectual Rights Court overturned the decision of the court of first instance and sent for a new trial a patent infringement case between the Russian representative office of the American company Harman and the Russian company Drivix. We are talking about a dispute related to sales of music systems with vertical design.

The manufacturer of audio equipment Harman (owns the brands JBL, AKG, Harman Kardon) filed a lawsuit against the M.Video-Eldorado network and Drivix (produces music centers under the Vipe brand), accusing them of "copying technologies." Harman owns in Russia the exclusive rights to two industrial models of music centers with a vertical design. According to the American company, Drivix produces devices similar in appearance and characteristics, and M.Video - Eldorado implements them. On this basis, Harman seeks compensation.

Court sends patent infringement case between Harman and Drivix for new trial

In March 2022 Rospatent , Drivix filed a complaint that tried to get patents for the controversial Harman industrial designs canceled, citing a lack of novelty and originality. However, in July 2022, this appeal was rejected. In this dispute, the City Arbitration Court Moscow and the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal sided with Harman, but the defendants appealed to the Intellectual Rights Court with a cassation appeal.

The Russian company points to a violation by the courts of the first and appellate instances of the norms of substantive and procedural law, which, allegedly, led to the adoption of illegal and unjustified judicial acts. So, according to the cashiers, the courts did not analyze industrial samples under patents of the Russian Federation No. 116676 and No. 116680 for "determining the totality of their significant signs, but only agreed with the amount of protection that was indicated in the appealed decision of the OFAS of Moscow, without independently analyzing the signs of the formula of industrial samples." As a result, the Intellectual Rights Court sided with Drivix and sent the case for a new^[1]

Notes