Protection of the business reputation of the business. Proof of. Arbitrage practice.
Judicial practice in cases of protection of business reputation is changing. If earlier the courts did not require evidence of the existence of the latter when presenting demands only to refute the disseminated defamatory information, now they may be required. It is quite logical that if the plaintiff requires damages, then the level of reputation and the degree of its decline as a result of the actions of the violator should be justified.
However, in the past, courts have not gone into such detail when making ordinary rebuttal requests. But, as already mentioned, even the practice of law enforcement that has been formed over the years can change dramatically. For businesses, this means additional costs and difficulties, which led to the consideration of one of these disputes in the Supreme Court, since, based on the text of the law, there is reason to believe that reputation arises at the time of state registration of a legal entity or individual entrepreneur.
Soon, the Supreme Court is to consider the case of LLC "Red Cat" on the demand for the protection of reputation, the plaintiff's cassation appeal was submitted for consideration to the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on 08.10.2021. The Supreme Court will decide whether it is necessary to prove its reputation to a legal entity.
LLC "Ryzhiy Kot", being a manufacturer and wholesaler of games and toys, began to sue a company that sold identical goods not produced by "Ryzhiy Kot" LLC and not on its order. In the course of the proceedings, the Company became aware of letters sent to various entrepreneurs by patent attorney Andrey Kudakov. In letters, this patent attorney called Red Cat LLC an "infringer of copyright", pointed to the "falsification" of evidence of the copyright held by the Society. In this regard, Ryzhiy Kot LLC applied to the Arbitration Court with a request for a refutation without additional claims for non-pecuniary damage, recovery of monetary compensation.
However, three judicial instances consistently rejected these claims due to the lack of evidence of the fact that the plaintiff had a certain reputation, and also referred to the linguistic conclusion about the lack of evidence for the dissemination of defamatory information. LLC "Red Cat" reached the Supreme Court in challenging such decisions. The plaintiff points out that, firstly, the statements are made in the affirmative form and contain conclusions about the commission of criminal offenses by the company's representatives, and secondly, in order to present claims only for refutation, only the fact of distribution of defamatory information by the defendant should be proved. The final point in the dispute will be put by the court.
We will be happy to provide you with legal assistance regarding the minimization of legal risks and available opportunities. We will try to find a solution that is right for you.
Call +7 (383) 310-38-76 or write to info@vitvet.com.
We recommend that you read our blog dedicated to legal and judicial cases (arbitration practice) and read the materials in the "Articles" section.
Our law firm provides various legal services in different cities of Russia (including Novosibirsk, Tomsk, Omsk, Barnaul, Krasnoyarsk, Kemerovo, Novokuznetsk, Irkutsk, Chita, Vladivostok, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Samara, Chelyabinsk, Rostov-on-Don, Ufa, Volgograd, Perm, Voronezh, Saratov, Krasnodar, Togliatti, Sochi).
We will be glad to see you among our clients! Call or write right now!
Phone +7 (383) 310-38-76
Email info@vitvet.com
Law firm "Vetrov and partners"
more than just legal services
WhatsApp
Telegram