[Moscow, RUSSIA] After more than a year and 20 lawsuits, U.S.
camera giant Eastman Kodak finally won
a case in a Moscow court against the man who
operates the Internet site kodak.ru.
In a decision Kodak called historically important
for the Russian Internet, the Moscow
arbitration court ruled Wednesday that
businessman Alexander Gundul has no right to
use the Kodak domain to promote his retail
electronics business.
“The ruling is a revolutionary thing,” said Yury
Vatskovsky, Kodaks lawyer. “Such cases
in Russia usually end in defeat for the
[plaintiff].”
Gunduls site displays only Kodak cameras and has
two disclaimers posted on the
bottom that say, “This site is not the site of
the Eastman Kodak Company” and “The
company Spectrum Service has the right of use to
this site.”
By clicking on any of the cameras posted on the
site, the Web user is taken to another
page that gives information about the product and
displays a “where to buy” button,
which links to photocd.ru the home page of an
electronics store called Digital Photo
Service that sells everything from videos to
computers.
The court ruled that the use of the Kodak domain
name to lure customers to Digital
Photo Service was an infringement on Kodak and
ordered Gundul to stop using the
site and pay the U.S. firm 2,600 rubles (US $93) in
compensation.
Gunduls lawyer, Sergo Selivanovsky, vowed to
appeal. “I am sure that Gundul did not
break the law,” he said.
But Vatskovsky said he was confident Kodak would
take control of the domain name by
December, which would stretch the legal odyssey
to 15 months.
In September 1999, the arbitration court rejected
Kodaks case against the agency in
charge of registering dot.ru domain names the
Russian Institute for the
Development of Public Networks, or RosNIIROS.
At the same time, Kodak was also pleading its
case against RosNIIROS with the
Anti-Monopoly Ministry. That, too, proved
unfruitful. So Kodak changed tactics it
decided to go after Gundul himself.
Vatskovsky said inadequate laws and incompetent
judges were the reasons the case
dragged on for so long.
“In dealing with our case, they looked at a 1992
ruling by the Supreme Arbitration Court
concerning the use of trade names, as opposed to
domain names, and ruled that if
kodak.ru does not indicate the legal status of
the company, like Co., Ltd. or Public
Company, then one cannot sue,” Vatskovsky said.
That 1992 ruling, however, is precisely what
Gunduls lawyer is pinning his hopes on.
“We have no other laws,” he said, “other than the
1992 circular letter of the Supreme
Arbitration Court stating that the firms name
should necessarily include its legal
status.
“The fact that Kodak won just one case does not
prove anything. Well see what
happens with their other suits,” he said.
RosNIIROS spokeswoman Kiran Litvinova called the
courts decision a “triumph” for
the domain name controlling body.
“The Kodak
hearing has finally summed up the
issue of whether the registration organization
can be held responsible,” she said
Vatskovsky, however, said Kodak was not planning
on keeping RosNIIROS out of the
battle until it wins. “If RosNIIROS will not help
us carry out the court ruling, we will take
legal action against them as well.”
