Aequo won final victory in a landmark Corvalol-Darnitsa trademark case
Aequo defended rights of Darnitsa Pharmaceutical Company in a dispute initiated by Farmak Joint Stock Company seeking invalidation of the trademark certificate for "Corvalol-Darnitsa" (Корвалол-Дарниця).
The dispute had a protracted procedural history. By the judgment of the Commercial Court of Kyiv City dated 11 July 2018, subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, Farmak's claim was dismissed. Farmak initiated a review of the court judgment in favour of Darnitsa in view of newly discovered circumstances.
The reason for the Farmak's motion was the revival of the PTO Appellate Chamber’s decision on recognition the "Корвалол Corvalolum" trademark as well-known in Ukraine, earlier invalidated by the court. The Commercial Court of Kyiv City dismissed the motion of Farmak, whereas the Court of Appeal satisfied it.
On 30 June 2022, the Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of Darnitsa in full and reversed the ruling of the appellate instance.
As the Supreme Court stated in its Judgement, "appellate court assumptions regarding the evaluation of evidence, when a dispute was considered on the merits, “through the prism of absence of the claimant’s right to a disputed mark” are not sufficient to conclude that a newly discovered fact (which Farmak refers to) would have decisive importance for the evaluation of evidence available in the matter and making a decision on the merits." The Court also noted that, when a trademark (designation) is granted the status of a well-known one, it is not decisive in the evaluation of confusing similarity of two intellectual property objects.
"Taking into account the procedural history of disputes between Darnitsa and Farmak over сorvalol, the judgment of the Supreme Court on the "Corvalol-Darnitsa" trademark in this case draws the final line under groundless attempts of the opponent to block the use by Darnitsa of its trademark. In this case, we consistently followed the approach that no party has the right to raise the issue of reviewing the final judgement that has entered into force only for a new trial. In other words, legal status of the PTO Appellate Chamber’s decision (whether it effective or not) does not change the earlier established fact of dissimilarity of the "Corvalol-Darnitsa" trademark under Certificate of Ukraine No. 49087 and the "Корвалол Corvalolum" trademark", – partner Tetiana Kudrytska comments.